I didn't investigate your program to be sure it isn't some other bug, but
the potential for this kind of bad behavior has always been with us, yes.
Robby
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> So, it has always behaved like this? I'm really surprised that I have
> never b
So, it has always behaved like this? I'm really surprised that I have
never been bitten by this before. 8^)
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I think that the lack of information about tail calls can be particularly
> pernicious in the presence of multiple value errors.
I think that the lack of information about tail calls can be particularly
pernicious in the presence of multiple value errors. It would be good to do
better, but I'm not sure how. The errortrace library contains what we
currently do so you'd want to experiment there if you have an idea.
Robby
On
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> The line
>
> (date-day quando)99
>
> looks pretty suspicious; with the 99 there, the first branch of the
> enclosing 'if' expression returns 8 values but the second branch returns 7
> values.
Yes, that was the source of the error (a mista
The line
(date-day quando)99
looks pretty suspicious; with the 99 there, the first branch of the
enclosing 'if' expression returns 8 values but the second branch returns
7 values.
Ryan
On 02/22/2013 09:48 AM, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
This one got me stumped for a while. I don't rememb
This one got me stumped for a while. I don't remember a case like
this ever occurring in the past, so I'm thinking that maybe this is a
regression?
In DrRacket, with debugging and stacktrace enabled in all the buffers
involved, when I run the file strano.rkt, I get this error:
Welcome to DrRacke
6 matches
Mail list logo
