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

You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :)

Robby


On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:

> 20 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> As a semi-random data point, I sometime use my no-check language
> (which is built on top of TR's) to show how things work in class
> without getting all the types right (or when there's some problem with
> the types).  In these cases I sometime use bogus type declarations
> like "(All (A B) ...)", which IIUC wouldn't work anymore.  It's just
> technically simpler and clearer to still use `:' instead of going back
> to comments.  (But it's obviously a weak point.)
>
> --
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                     http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130401/94558b4f/attachment-0001.html>