Jacqueline Firth

Another topic: using parameters with mocks to test with a broader scope than `define/mock`.

This seems like it could have some overlap with pattern matching. Would being able to unpack `arguments` instances with pattern matching be enough?

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you describe the problem with more detail?

Is it possible to use it in 2.6 and 2.7? I don't intend to drop support for those versions.

Could you add a test verifying that the check info is added? The `current-check-handler` parameter should allow you to get access to the check info stack in a test.

I've tested this out: ``` racket (parameterize ([current-check-handler raise]) (check-true #f)) ``` This causes the `exn:test:check` to be raised instead of printed, so you can inspect it. So maybe something...

I'm not sure. Maybe `current-check-around` can be used to prevent it registering a failure? Might be worthwhile opening an issue in the rackunit repo about how to test custom checks.

My experience with contracts mostly comes from the [Racket](http://racket-lang.org/) programming language. [The Racket Guide](https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/index.html) has a document describing contracts called [Simple Contracts on Functions](http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contract-func.html?q=contract), which covers most of what we...

This needs guide sections for all the tech definitions, including opaques, stubs, and argument structures.

It should probably reverse only the first two arguments. "All the arguments" is not well defined when currying is involved IMO. It honestly might also make sense to drop support...