5 minutes ago, Casey Klein wrote:
>
> For anyone following at home, the change turns this message [...]
Ah, so that's what broke enough tests to make the build log explode...
> into this one
>
> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt:9.17: found a contradiction
> between the contract (-> any/c any/c any/c) on #:equiv argument of
> test--> for
> (file /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt)
> and its implementation; expected a procedure that accepts 2 mandatory
> arguments without any keywords, given: 1; to fix adjust either the
> contract or the implementation of
> (file /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt)
(Not that my opinion should count for more than 5% of a vote, but this
is IMO pretty horrible. It makes it even more difficult to get to the
important details, by wrapping them in text that looks like ... a
contract. Feels like the same annoying thing of digging through 10
pages of a rent contract for the few places that list how you're being
robbed.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
