You don't get the same message-- the expected line is gone somehow. Robby
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Eric Dobson <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't get why TR should use a custom contract instead of case-> > providing better error messages. > > You get the same error message with: > > #lang racket > > (define/contract (f) (case->) 2) > (f 2) > ;(f) > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Matthias Felleisen > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Feb 5, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: >> >> >> >> >> In 5.3.2, when running untyped.rkt, I get: >> >> >> >> #<case-lambda-procedure>: arity mismatch; >> >> the expected number of arguments does not match the given number >> >> given: 1 >> >> arguments...: >> >> 5 >> > >> > I agree that this error message is bad. It's a result of changing the >> > type `Procedure` to use the contract `(case->)`. Maybe we should use a >> > custom contract here instead that produces a better error message. >> >> >> AMEN! >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
