Asumu Takikawa writes:
> On 2015-09-02 08:41:21 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> > That would be great, but if that's not possible, the next-best option would
> > be to document the restriction.
>
> I now have a pull request that should address this:
>
> https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/
On 2015-09-02 08:41:21 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> That would be great, but if that's not possible, the next-best option would
> be to document the restriction.
I now have a pull request that should address this:
https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/1044
I've only found one issue with this so
Hi Asumu,
> In particular, the code for class contracts explicitly installs a value for
> the
> inspector that doesn't allow inspection (there's a comment saying "No
> inspection").
Thanks for exploring this, at least I now know what's going on!
> But maybe it's worth revisiting this part
Hi Konrad,
On 2015-09-01 20:42:42 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> Thanks for the reference, but my interpretation of this is different. I
> don't care about eq?, nor about testing how objects were created. I want
> comparison by equal? by recursive application to the fields - just as for
> transpare
On 01/09/15 18:45, Daniel Feltey wrote:
I think this is expected, if you want to check for equality on instances
of contracted classes you should use the `object=?` function which can
"see through" the contract wrappers.
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/objectutils.html?q=object%3D%3F#%28d
Hi everyone,
I am trying to add a contract to a class but find that the mere presence
of the contract breaks my code. Here is a minimal example that illustrates
the problem:
--
#lang racket
(define foo%
(class object%
(inspect #f)
(super-
6 matches
Mail list logo
