[racket-dev] contracts not okay?

From: Asumu Takikawa (asumu at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 12 20:31:59 EDT 2012

On 2012-07-12 20:19:34 -0400, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> First, the interface wasn't even being associated with the class. This
> was the source of my structural/not comment.

Ah, I see. This interface was actually defined with `class->interface`
before and I forgot to update the class to use the new separately
defined interface. My bad.

> Second, the interface contract (based on the documentation) was wrong
> because the documentation is wrong. None of the implementation
> actually take the optional arguments.

Okay, my comment was just about this issue, but I think we are on the
same page on this.


Posted on the dev mailing list.