On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Casey Klein > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> As for a suggestion, I don't have anything concrete (and I don't have >>> nearly enough contract experience to say something concrete) -- but in >>> general I prefer to see those important bits first, and the vague >>> human text later. >>> >> >> This organization was my goal in suggesting that we tack an >> explanation onto the old message. I was imagining something like this: >> >> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt:9.17: >> (file /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) >> broke the contract (-> any/c any/c any/c) on #:equiv argument of >> test-->; expected a procedure that accepts 2 mandatory arguments >> without any keywords, given: 1. Possible fixes include changing (file >> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) and changing the contract. > > I like the idea of better error messages, and in that spirit, I > suggest: newlines. > > For example: > > /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt:9.17: (file > /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) broke the contract (-> any/c > any/c any/c) on #:equiv argument of test-->: > Expected: a procedure that accepts 2 mandatory arguments without > any keywords. > Given: 1. > Possible fixes include changing (file > /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) and changing the contract. >
I like this suggestion. What do you think, Robby? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
