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

2013-04-01 Thread Matthias Felleisen
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

Re: [racket-dev] Add Teachpack dialog can be very confusing

2013-04-01 Thread Matthias Felleisen
Tell 12 year old middle school students. On Mar 31, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: I said this to you in person, but I continue to think that 2htdp should just do away with the concept of teachpacks, and just use the require form always. Even today, it could insert a

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

2013-04-01 Thread Eli Barzilay
20 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: 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

Re: [racket-dev] Add Teachpack dialog can be very confusing

2013-04-01 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
I don't see why middle school students would have more trouble with `require` than with any other aspect of the system. Also, WeScheme just provides graphics libraries by default, which is another option we could consider. On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu

Re: [racket-dev] Add Teachpack dialog can be very confusing

2013-04-01 Thread Stephen Bloch
On Apr 1, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: I don't see why middle school students would have more trouble with `require` than with any other aspect of the system. I tend to agree with Sam on this one. I haven't taught 12-year-old middle school students, but if

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

2013-04-01 Thread Robby Findler
You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :) Robby On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: 20 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: 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

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

2013-04-01 Thread David Van Horn
On 4/1/13 11:16 AM, Robby Findler wrote: You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :) Or no-check could bind ellipsis to some type. This would be useful for sketching types out in no-check and then refining them to actual types in TR. David Robby On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Eli

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

2013-04-01 Thread Eli Barzilay
An hour and a half ago, David Van Horn wrote: On 4/1/13 11:16 AM, Robby Findler wrote: You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :) The time that I'd spend explaining why I wrote `Integer' makes the comment route more appealing... Or no-check could bind ellipsis to some type. This would be

Re: [racket-dev] Add Teachpack dialog can be very confusing

2013-04-01 Thread Eli Barzilay
Two hours ago, Stephen Bloch wrote: I tend to agree with Sam on this one. I haven't taught 12-year-old middle school students, but if they can handle (ellipse 50 30 solid purple), surely they can handle a boilerplate (require picturing-programs) or (require 2htdp/image). It could be

Re: [racket-dev] Add Teachpack dialog can be very confusing

2013-04-01 Thread Robby Findler
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Bloch bl...@adelphi.edu wrote: On Apr 1, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: I don't see why middle school students would have more trouble with `require` than with any other aspect of the system. I tend to agree with Sam

Re: [racket-dev] Add Teachpack dialog can be very confusing

2013-04-01 Thread Stephen Bloch
On Apr 1, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Bloch bl...@adelphi.edu wrote: Also, WeScheme just provides graphics libraries by default, which is another option we could consider. Bad idea; somebody might want to