Thanks for the quick service! Should I just be filing bug reports for things like this, or is it good to mention them on the list? I hesitate to file most things, because I'm not always sure they're bugs, but this one was pretty obvious. (And if I'd searched I probably would have discovered it had already been filed, but Matthew might not have been reminded and fixed it so quickly.)
I guess my question is, for someone at my level of use (not a PLT developer by a long shot, but a pretty regular user) what should I do if I see something that looks like a bug? Todd On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry that I lost track of that one --- fix pushed. > > At Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:37:32 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> This is PR 10954. >> >> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Todd O'Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Here's a minimal example of what I think is a bug: >> > >> > #lang racket >> > >> > (define (blah #:foo foo #:bar bar) >> > (+ foo 2)) >> > >> > (blah #:bar 3) >> > >> > Running it causes: >> > >> > blah: requires an argument with keyword #:foo, not supplied; x: >> > expects type <x> as 1st argument, given: 'x; other arguments were: >> > '#:bar 3 >> > >> > where the error information involving x is just bizarre. I'm guessing >> > that's not intended behavior... >> > >> > Todd >> > _________________________________________________ >> > For list-related administrative tasks: >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> sam th >> [email protected] >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
