As far as I know, it has never been necessary to explicitly define absent methods. The paragraph is just describing what absent methods are implicitly bound to by the #:methods form. It used to be that methods were bound as the value #f in the body of the #:methods definitions themselves, so the documentation was clarifying what you'd get if you referred to them. Now, any undefined method is bound as syntax that will raise a compile-time error if you refer to it without binding it, so the #f part is completely invisible to the user.
Carl Eastlund On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On 2013-08-28 11:14:50 +0200, Tobias Hammer wrote: > > Can anyone explain the part with the #f to me? Does it mean that i > > have to (define some-gen-fun #f) to indicate it's not implemented? > > But that seems to have no real impact as i get the exactly same > > error with just leaving it out? > > I think this is a mistake in the documentation. You are allowed to leave > out any method definitions (without a #f definition). We probably forgot > to delete that sentence after changing the syntax of method definitions > at some point. > > Cheers, > Asumu > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
