If you look here at typed/syntax/stx.rkt: https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/blob/master/typed-racket-more/typed/syntax/stx.rkt You’ll see something that looks sort of similar to an unsafe require/typed.
But if you look here: https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/f3dba3eb6bf44685cb2290d48204e81a84fc09a6/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-more/typed/syntax/stx.rkt And at the history here: https://github.com/plt/racket/commits/f3dba3eb6bf44685cb2290d48204e81a84fc09a6/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-more/typed/syntax/stx.rkt And here: http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?debug=&database=default&cmd=view+audit-trail&cmd=view&pr=14561 Because of some confusion about whether (Syntaxof t) represented a syntax object with a syntax->datum result of t or one with a syntax-e result of t, there were wrong types for syntax-objects, syntax-e, stx->list, stx-car, etc. (inconsistent with each other) And because they didn’t use contracts, bugs like these stay there for a lot longer than they would if there were contracts guarding them. And it’s not like the people who made this were “new users.” But I think it’s just that easy to introduce bugs like this when things aren’t guarded by contracts, even for very experienced programmers. On Mar 20, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > I think we should think the best of our users and not assume that we > know better than they do about what they need to do their work. > > In this particular case, they can always opt out of tr entirely, lets > not forget. > > Robby > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This has been discussed before, and I think it’s a good idea, but I also >> think any such feature should be well-hidden. I’m sure that new users would >> use it frequently just to make the typechecker “shut up” when really their >> programs are unsound. >> >>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 12:30, Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:20:38PM -0400, Eric Dong 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. >>> >>> Perhaps this model can provide guidance: >>> >>> If I recall correctly, Modula 3, another garbage-collected, strongly >>> typed language, has unsafe interfaces and, separately, unsafe >>> implementations. >>> >>> You can implement a safe (i.e., ordinary) interface with an unsafe >>> implementation. This means that it is the implementer's >>> (not the compiler's) responsibility to make sure that the the module >>> will perform all necessary run-time checks to make sure that it can >>> only be used safely, but the implementation can use unsafe language >>> features. >>> >>> An unsafe interface, on the other hand, can only be used in an unsafe >>> implementation. >>> >>> -- hendrik >>> ____________________ >>> Racket Users list: >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
