> I just don't think the additional line in that error message is very > helpful, and it's already a long and scary error message.
Not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I agree. Similarly, I wouldn't find it helpful if rackunit failure messages added a caveat, "assuming the unit test isn't buggy". I imagine most people already consider the provenance of the contract or test, and prioritize. If it's in a standard or "respect-worthy" library, _possibly_ it's buggy but more likely the other code is. Whereas if I wrote the contract or test, it's as suspect as that which it claims to validate. Have many people not approached it that way, and it's caused problems? _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
