This has been discussed before, and I think it’s a good idea, but I also think any such feature should be well-hidden. I’m sure that new users would use it frequently just to make the typechecker “shut up” when really their programs are unsound.
> On Mar 20, 2015, at 12:30, Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:20:38PM -0400, Eric Dong wrote: >> It would be nice if we could have an unsafe version of require/typed, which >> doesn't generate a contract, but simply "lies" to the type system about the >> type. This, of course, breaks the type system's guarantees, and causes UB >> if optimizations are one, but in some cases contracts cannot be generated >> (for example, for the "object-name" function), but one can create a safe >> type for it. >> >> Why can't there be a "require/typed/unsafe" form? It could save a lot of >> unnecessary asserts and casts, and unnecessary contract overhead. > > Perhaps this model can provide guidance: > > If I recall correctly, Modula 3, another garbage-collected, strongly > typed language, has unsafe interfaces and, separately, unsafe > implementations. > > You can implement a safe (i.e., ordinary) interface with an unsafe > implementation. This means that it is the implementer's > (not the compiler's) responsibility to make sure that the the module > will perform all necessary run-time checks to make sure that it can > only be used safely, but the implementation can use unsafe language > features. > > An unsafe interface, on the other hand, can only be used in an unsafe > implementation. > > -- hendrik > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
