On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:05:01 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> At Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:29:10 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >>> I suspect that this is a bug >>> in arity checking/reporting (at Matthew's level). >> >> Me too, since I changed something related, but I haven't been able to >> replicate the problem so far. Let me know if you can. > > Fixed. It was an arity-reporting bug, but not as new as I thought. The > key ingredients were `for-each' and a chaperoned (via a contract) > procedure.
I am glad I noticed and sent the message before writing it off as some random C event I couldn't possibly recreate. It is a wonderful illustration of the principle of unsafety. An unsafe language picks random bits and (semi)interprets them for you. -- Matthias _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
