On 2012-07-12 20:19:34 -0400, Jay McCarthy wrote: > First, the interface wasn't even being associated with the class. This > was the source of my structural/not comment.
Ah, I see. This interface was actually defined with `class->interface` before and I forgot to update the class to use the new separately defined interface. My bad. > Second, the interface contract (based on the documentation) was wrong > because the documentation is wrong. None of the implementation > actually take the optional arguments. Okay, my comment was just about this issue, but I think we are on the same page on this. Cheers, Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev