Was it this commit here?
https://github.com/plt/racket/commit/606a94621253391536e9c89c573dc70fd28efbe6
On Aug 24, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Alexander D. Knauth alexan...@knauth.org wrote:
It seems to me that (set-implements? (mutable-set) 'set-add) should return
#f, and in 6.1.1 (and I think 6.2), that's true.
But in the latest snapshots, it produces #t.
It seems like it's implemented as an error message instead of not implemented
at all, and `set-implements?` can't tell the difference between implemented
with an error message and actually implemented.
Is this a choice with reasons behind it, or should this be a bug?
--
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.
--
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.
