You're right on. Let's see what we can do -- Matthias
On Sep 2, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Daniel Prager wrote:
> Hi Matthias
>
> Thanks for the explanation - it helps. I played with the kind of
> post-condition "broken contract" example that you gave, and find it less
> problematic, since the blam
Hi Matthias
Thanks for the explanation - it helps. I played with the kind of
post-condition "broken contract" example that you gave, and find it less
problematic, since the blame is local to the function / supplier.
If the error in my original example was reformatted by moving the at clause
to t
On Sep 2, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Prager wrote:
> Consider this file:
>
>
> #lang racket
> (define/contract (twice x)
> (-> number? number?)
> (* 2 x))
>
> (twice 'foo)
>
>
> When run in DrRacket 5.3
3 matches
Mail list logo
