On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > As for a suggestion, I don't have anything concrete (and I don't have > nearly enough contract experience to say something concrete) -- but in > general I prefer to see those important bits first, and the vague > human text later. >
This organization was my goal in suggesting that we tack an explanation onto the old message. I was imagining something like this: /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt:9.17: (file /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) broke the contract (-> any/c any/c any/c) on #:equiv argument of test-->; expected a procedure that accepts 2 mandatory arguments without any keywords, given: 1. Possible fixes include changing (file /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) and changing the contract. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
