[racket-dev] Purpose of typed/racket/no-check

On Mar 31, 2013, at 9:32 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:

> My expectation when using typed/racket/no-check is that I won't get
> any type errors.


To me, the words "no check" mean just that: do not type-check the module. But I think it is okay to parse the types. I doubt people use this option when they wish to avoid a parse error in the type expressions. 



>  While `define-predicate` can't work in that sense,
> we could just make `cast` always succeed, which I think would be
> helpful.
> 
> I only use no-check to take a file that won't typecheck due to some
> problem I hope to fix, and just run it.  I think what you're
> suggesting would reduce its usefulness for some of those cases, and
> increase it in others.
> 
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There have been a couple recent bug reports because certain features
>> need a type, such as cast and define-predicate.
>> 
>> I was wondering whether TR/no-check should check that the types are
>> well formed, but not check that the expressions are well typed? I'm
>> thinking this would be less surprising to users, but wondering whether
>> users would expect that type definition errors to still work in
>> TR/no-check.
>> _________________________
>>  Racket Developers list:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
> _________________________
>  Racket Developers list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev