Alex Knauth

Here's something that distinguishes them: ```racket #lang racket/base (require rackunit) (define fn-context (#%plain-app make-continuation-prompt-tag 'fn-context)) (define-syntax-rule (#%app f a ...) (#%plain-app (with-continuation-mark fn-context 'function-position f) (with-continuation-mark fn-context 'argument-position a) ...))...

Okay. I just realized `check-equal?` itself doesn't use the `#%app` from its use site but the app from its definition site.

(Re: @jackfirth's comment) The `check-equal?/values` form wouldn't make sense as a function expression because functions can't accept multiple-valued arguments. I didn't want to pretend that `check-equal?/values` could be used as...

(Re: symmetry with `check-exn`) Using `check-exn` can be cumbersome too. I can imagine for example `check-fail/info` being useful over `check-fail*` for two reasons: (1) A check-info value is shorter and...

This this the same issue as #122 ?

I think this is caused by `default-check-around`'s use of `(with-handlers ([(λ (_) #t) ....]) ....)` in `rackunit/private/check` line 70 https://github.com/racket/rackunit/blob/ce0ba9f7b1f7bbee4150a246ceb0052272186621/rackunit-lib/rackunit/private/check.rkt#L70 And possibly other `with-handlers` catch-all clauses in other implementations of...

No, with FlexibleContexts and UndecidableInstances it succeeds and `(c [1, 2, 3, 4])` returns 10.

There are two reasons why we want this. 1. Our module system will be easier to implement if this declaration form exists and the inference version of `def` expands to...

That would be better than the current state of things. The Core-`def` form would have slightly more information than we would need. All we need is the identifier and the...

What we currently have is a copy-pasted version of this code in hackett-module. Right now it "happens to work" because the mangling scheme "happens" to be compatible with hackett's mangling...