Could you simply forge the source location on the syntax object to make it look like it's from a collection?
Carl Eastlund On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote: > I looked into this too and didn't come up with a good solution. > > It would be nice if there were a way to write the "here's a path, please > tell me which part to replace with "<pkg>/something" without too many > dependencies, but I didn't try to see if that would be feasible. > > Meanwhile, I agree that just disabling that test is probably the way to go. > > Robby > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > >> Currently, there's one test in 'contract-test.rktl' that fails. The >> problem is that the test expects 'contract-test.rktl' to be in the >> "main collects directory", but it isn't -- it's in the `racket-test` >> package. What we want is to have it detect that it's in a package, >> but doing that has two problems. First, the relevant function is in >> `setup/private/setup-relative`, but should probably be exported >> publicly. Second, it can't be used, because it uses the package >> system (of course) but the package system uses contracts in its >> implementation. For this reason, I've disabled the test for the >> moment, so that the core racket tests complete successfully [1]. >> >> Unfortunately, this is a really nice, if small, feature of the >> contract system. Any suggestions for how we can fix this? >> >> Sam >> >> [1] Why I care in will be clear in a subsequent email. >> > > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
