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

From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (samth at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 31 21:32:04 EDT 2013

My expectation when using typed/racket/no-check is that I won't get
any type errors.  While `define-predicate` can't work in that sense,
we could just make `cast` always succeed, which I think would be

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

Posted on the dev mailing list.