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] 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] 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

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

2013-03-31 Thread Eric Dobson
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

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

2013-03-31 Thread Matthias Felleisen
I have proposed that before and I support it. Please do it! On Mar 31, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Eric Dobson 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

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

2013-03-31 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
My expectation when using typed/racket/no-check is that I won't get any type errors. 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