Alexis King

Possibly; I’m not sure. My guess is that `*` adjacent to `—` should not be considered to be “in the middle of words”, so I was wondering if there was...

Yeah, that’s fair! I certainly don’t blame you. I am mostly just reporting this because I ran into it, for completeness’s sake. If I find some time, I might look...

I don't think this is an issue with `check-eq?`, this is an issue with `eq?`. This errors, too. ``` racket #lang racket (module untyped racket (provide my-eq?) (define (my-eq? a...

Looks like this was already discussed on the mailing list here: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/2013-May/012455.html

@bennn This works, but it fails the test because the instances are no longer `eq?`. ``` racket #lang typed/racket/base (require typed/rackunit) (struct foo ([bar : Any]) #:transparent) (define foo1 (foo...

Well, the "quick fix" solution would be to rewrite `typed/rackunit` to use the base-env-extending module language, which wouldn't generate any additional contracts, anyway. I don't like that, especially since rackunit...

That's funny, but unsurprising. `define-simple-check` is a macro that uses untyped identifiers, and `typed/rackunit` doesn't handle it in any special way.

> (Conjecture: it won’t break anything.) I agree that testing the change would be a better idea than blindly guessing as to its impact, but I’d bet you’re wrong. Sadly,...

I think the root of this issue is that `match` is implicitly expecting that `checked-struct-info?` provides a fairly strong guarantee. Specifically, `match` assumes that if (checked-struct-info? v) is `#t`, then...

Hey. Amateur Racketeer and professional web developer here. I want to try and chime in and hopefully give some perspective on what I care about and why RacketScript is exciting...