I think the mismatch was not intentional. Maybe `do-copy' originally had a consistent interface, or maybe it was written down in `editor<%>' before it became apparent that its interface would be be specific to each different kin of editor. I can't think of any reason to have `do-copy' in its present form in `editor<%>'.
At Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:29:52 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > Hi all, > > While writing contracts for classes in racket/gui, I noticed that the > implementations of text% and pasteboard% do not act as behavioral > subtypes of editor<%>, which both classes implement. > > In particular, consider the do-copy method from editor<%>. Its contract > looks like this: > > (send an-editor do-copy) → void? > http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/gui/editor___.html?q=do-copy#(meth._(((lib > ._mred/main..rkt)._editor~3c~25~3e)._do-copy)) > > However, the implementations have the following contracts: > > (send a-text do-copy start end time extend?) → void? > http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/gui/text_.html?q=do-copy#(meth._(((lib._mr > ed/main..rkt)._text~25)._do-copy)) > > and > > (send a-pasteboard do-copy time extend?) → void? > http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/gui/pasteboard_.html?q=do-copy#(meth._(((l > ib._mred/main..rkt)._pasteboard~25)._do-copy)) > > That is, do-copy in editor<%> has no mandatory arguments, do-copy in > text% has four mandatory arguments, and do-copy in pasteboard% has > two mandatory arguments. Thus, the do-copy methods in text% and > pasteboard% do not implement the editor<%> interface (in the behavioral > subtyping sense) nor do they implement a common interface despite > claiming to. > > There are several other examples of this issue in the same classes. (see > do-paste, paste-x-selection, etc.) > > Is there a design rationale for this? Is this method not meant to > implement a common interface? > > Cheers, > Asumu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
