Hi Asumu, > In particular, the code for class contracts explicitly installs a value for > the > inspector that doesn't allow inspection (there's a comment saying "No > inspection").
Thanks for exploring this, at least I now know what's going on! > But maybe it's worth revisiting this part of the design. I can look into if > it's possible to have the contracted class inherit the inspect of the > original > and whether that causes any problems. That would be great, but if that's not possible, the next-best option would be to document the restriction. For now I'll remove the contract, as equality checking is clearly more important for me. Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
