On 11/19/12 19:21, Robby Findler wrote:
I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful
match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get
the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months.
Does that sound ok to you?
Temporally I'll remove the files affected from the PLIST (the list of
files of the package), with this I can avoid the differences between
archs. When the bug is fixed, I'll decide if the patch is too invasive
or not for add to the port. Obviously this bug isn't a big problem for
me :)
OpenBSD will release the next version at May 1 and IIRC the frozen of
the CVS will occur in February. I want do racket a official package for
the next release, so I need fix or at least add a note about the known
bugs.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
<i...@juanfra.info> wrote:
On 11/19/12 03:40, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It's a problem with the contract boundary. The examples work fine in
Typed
Racket. The problem type is this:
(: flomap-transform
(case->
(flomap Flomap-Transform -> flomap)
(flomap Flomap-Transform Integer Integer Integer Integer
-> flomap)))
The contract system claims that `flomap-transform' breaks its own
contract.
This is clearly bogus, so TR must be generating the wrong contract for
it.
Still, I should have caught this, and I apologize. I'll do penance by...
writing a bug report? Probably not enough.
Penance is an antiquated concept. We should do away with it. :)
But if you feel bad enough to make a small program that demonstrates
the problem that would be a contribution to it's solution!
Thanks for to catch the bug guys!. Please send me a mail when you fix the
bug and I'll add the patches to the OpenBSD port.
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
