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 <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>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
