If we take it out of editor<%>, we should not encounter any problems whatsoever. It is possible that additional implements-interface checks will succeed, but I am doubtful. Other than that I can't think of any problems.
Should Asumu try and just run the whole test suite and if it works you commit the change? On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > I think the mismatch was not intentional. > > Maybe `do-copy' originally had a consistent interface, or maybe it was > written down in `editor<%>' before it became apparent that its > interface would be be specific to each different kin of editor. I can't > think of any reason to have `do-copy' in its present form in > `editor<%>'. > > At Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:29:52 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> While writing contracts for classes in racket/gui, I noticed that the >> implementations of text% and pasteboard% do not act as behavioral >> subtypes of editor<%>, which both classes implement. >> >> In particular, consider the do-copy method from editor<%>. Its contract >> looks like this: >> >> (send an-editor do-copy) → void? >> http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/gui/editor___.html?q=do-copy#(meth._(((lib >> ._mred/main..rkt)._editor~3c~25~3e)._do-copy)) >> >> However, the implementations have the following contracts: >> >> (send a-text do-copy start end time extend?) → void? >> http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/gui/text_.html?q=do-copy#(meth._(((lib._mr >> ed/main..rkt)._text~25)._do-copy)) >> >> and >> >> (send a-pasteboard do-copy time extend?) → void? >> http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/gui/pasteboard_.html?q=do-copy#(meth._(((l >> ib._mred/main..rkt)._pasteboard~25)._do-copy)) >> >> That is, do-copy in editor<%> has no mandatory arguments, do-copy in >> text% has four mandatory arguments, and do-copy in pasteboard% has >> two mandatory arguments. Thus, the do-copy methods in text% and >> pasteboard% do not implement the editor<%> interface (in the behavioral >> subtyping sense) nor do they implement a common interface despite >> claiming to. >> >> There are several other examples of this issue in the same classes. (see >> do-paste, paste-x-selection, etc.) >> >> Is there a design rationale for this? Is this method not meant to >> implement a common interface? >> >> Cheers, >> Asumu > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev