If you want the opposite thing, (require-from-typed-with-no-contracts ...), then you can use TR cheat:
https://github.com/jeapostrophe/exp/tree/master/tr-cheat On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Eric Dong <yd2d...@uwaterloo.ca> 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. > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > -- Jay McCarthy http://jeapostrophe.github.io "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great." - D&C 64:33 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
