[racket-dev] [plt] Push #21701: master branch updated

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Casey Klein
> <clklein at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> As for a suggestion, I don't have anything concrete (and I don't have
>>> nearly enough contract experience to say something concrete) -- but in
>>> general I prefer to see those important bits first, and the vague
>>> human text later.
>>>
>>
>> This organization was my goal in suggesting that we tack an
>> explanation onto the old message. I was imagining something like this:
>>
>> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt:9.17:
>>  (file /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt)
>>  broke the contract (-> any/c any/c any/c) on #:equiv argument of
>> test-->; expected a procedure that accepts 2 mandatory arguments
>> without any keywords, given: 1. Possible fixes include changing (file
>> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) and changing the contract.
>
> I like the idea of better error messages, and in that spirit, I
> suggest: newlines.
>
> For example:
>
> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt:9.17: (file
> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) broke the contract (-> any/c
> any/c any/c) on #:equiv argument of test-->:
>   Expected: a procedure that accepts 2 mandatory arguments without
> any keywords.
>   Given: 1.
>   Possible fixes include changing (file
> /Users/clklein/tmp/contract-violator.rkt) and changing the contract.
>

I like this suggestion. What do you think, Robby?