Jacqueline Firth

For comparison, when the `message` argument is omitted: ``` (check-exn #px"bad" (λ () 1)) ``` ...the failure says: ``` -------------------- . FAILURE name: check-exn location: unsaved-editor:5:0 params: '(#px"bad" #) message:...

The `check-eq?` and `check-eqv?` checks need this too right? I'd find it strange if they weren't consistent with `check-equal?`. What about adding a `values-list` syntax to `define-check` that let you...

I think it's a reasonable tradeoff. It's purely additive; no existing uses of `check-equal?` would break as a result of adding this feature. Even existing higher order uses will continue...

Would that work now?

Do `(#%app check-equal? (stuff) '(argument-position))` and `(#%app check-equal?/values (stuff) '(argument-position)))` have different results?

I don't see why it can't act as a function when used higher order, it would just lose its magical value-capturing abilities (and any "value-list" argument would be a list...

`contract-out` and `define/contract` use different parties for blaming: `contract-out` uses a boundary between the exporting and importing modules, but `define/contract` uses a boundary between the function itself and the rest...

Yes, that's exactly it. I'm not sure what the correct way to show a message about a skipped test is though. All I know for certain is I want `rackunit/log`...

It seems awkward for cases where I just want to assert that a check fails and don't want to do anything with infos or the failure message. What about if...

### Proposal v2 - `(check-fail )` - provides the least surprise for folks used to `check-exn`. - `(check-fail* )` - unlike exception-throwing-thunks, it's actually useful to check that a check...