<div dir="ltr">You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :)<div><br>Robby</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eli@barzilay.org" target="_blank">eli@barzilay.org</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">20 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:<br> ><br> > On Mar 31, 2013, at 9:32 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:<br> ><br> > > My expectation when using typed/racket/no-check is that I won't<br> > > get any type errors.<br> ><br> > To me, the words "no check" mean just that: do not type-check the<br> > module. But I think it is okay to parse the types. I doubt people<br> > use this option when they wish to avoid a parse error in the type<br> > expressions.<br> <br> </div>As a semi-random data point, I sometime use my no-check language<br> (which is built on top of TR's) to show how things work in class<br> without getting all the types right (or when there's some problem with<br> the types). In these cases I sometime use bogus type declarations<br> like "(All (A B) ...)", which IIUC wouldn't work anymore. It's just<br> technically simpler and clearer to still use `:' instead of going back<br> to comments. (But it's obviously a weak point.)<br> <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br> --<br> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:<br> <a href="http://barzilay.org/" target="_blank">http://barzilay.org/</a> Maze is Life!<br> </font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_________________________<br> Racket Developers list:<br> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>