On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > On 2013-02-06 06:34:42 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >> You don't get the same message-- the expected line is gone somehow. > > The expected line is gone here because there's no number that would make > sense. A `(case-lambda)` has no applicable arity (in particular, it's > not zero). > > Maybe the arity error should say "unapplicable function"? > > Also, by a custom contract, I meant one that would produce a message > about not allowing unknown procedures through rather than raising an > obscure arity error.
Let's try that -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
