Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-15 Thread Greg Hendershott
> I just don't think the additional line in that error message is very > helpful, and it's already a long and scary error message. Not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I agree. Similarly, I wouldn't find it helpful if rackunit failure messages added a caveat, "assuming the unit test isn't bu

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-14 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > Unfortunately, it is impossible to distinguish the two kinds of > contracts. Even if we introduced two different linguistic mechanisms, > we would simply confuse programmers more. I certainly agree with that. I just don't think the

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-14 Thread Matthias Felleisen
Unfortunately, it is impossible to distinguish the two kinds of contracts. Even if we introduced two different linguistic mechanisms, we would simply confuse programmers more. Let's try this experiment for a while and see what happens. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wro

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-14 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
I think the vast majority of contract errors that Racket programmers see will be from contracts that the particular programmer didn't write. For example: standard library contracts, or contracts from packages they install, or contracts generated by Typed Racket, or other such. For example, here's

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-14 Thread Robby Findler
Sorry-- I replied on my phone and too tersely the first time. What I'm trying to say is that I do not agree that compiler bugs or ffi bugs that corrupt memory or things along these lines are analogous. I do agree that those things do not deserve lines in our contract error messages. Contracts are

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-14 Thread Robby Findler
I do not buy this argument: the user didn't write the compiler but they wrote the contract. Robby On Monday, July 14, 2014, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > This seems like a situation where the new error message is potentially > more confusing, even though it's technically more correct. There are

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

2014-07-14 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
This seems like a situation where the new error message is potentially more confusing, even though it's technically more correct. There are lots of other caveats we could add ("assuming there isn't a compiler bug", etc) but I think adding them would make Racket harder to use. Sam On Mon, Jul 14,