[racket] Unsafe version of require/typed?

From: Jay McCarthy (jay.mccarthy at gmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 21 11:05:10 EDT 2015

If you want the opposite thing, (require-from-typed-with-no-contracts
...), then you can use TR cheat:


On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Eric Dong <yd2dong at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> It would be nice if we could have an unsafe version of require/typed, which
> doesn't generate a contract, but simply "lies" to the type system about the
> type. This, of course, breaks the type system's guarantees, and causes UB if
> optimizations are one, but in some cases contracts cannot be generated (for
> example, for the "object-name" function), but one can create a safe type for
> it.
> Why can't there be a "require/typed/unsafe" form? It could save a lot of
> unnecessary asserts and casts, and unnecessary contract overhead.
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

Jay McCarthy

           "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing,
      for ye are laying the foundation of a great work.
And out of small things proceedeth that which is great."
                          - D&C 64:33

Posted on the users mailing list.