On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Asumu Takikawa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-07-12 19:38:44 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> > | I updated and noticed that this was now failing because interface >> > | contracts are not check structurally (any more?). > > I don't think this is a case of checking structurally or not. It is > not valid, for example, for the following behavioral subtyping to > hold: > (-> number? boolean?) > <: > (-> number? [number?] boolean?) > > since the former cannot be used in contexts that expect to apply the > optional argument (using imaginary contract notation where [...] means > optional). > > You might want this to be okay in the other direction (though interface > contracts will currently not allow it).
You are misunderstanding. There were two issues. First, the interface wasn't even being associated with the class. This was the source of my structural/not comment. Second, the interface contract (based on the documentation) was wrong because the documentation is wrong. None of the implementation actually take the optional arguments. I "fixed" both of these things. The first was definitely a fix. The second might just be a sign of a regression against the old MrEd. Jay > >> > | Should I change the documentation or is >> > | this a bad backwards incompatibility with the older versions? > > I don't have an opinion on this since I'm not too familiar with > gl-context<%>s. I wrote the contract based on the documentation. > > Cheers, > Asumu > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev -- Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
