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.dob...@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 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
