[racket-dev] [racket] Implementing contracts for async channels

Oh, sorry I missed that.

Robby

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lambda at gmail.com> wrote:
> I already used blame-add-context, but the message I used wasn’t very good, so I’ve improved it. If everything else looks good, feel free to merge this whenever you get the chance!
>
>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 15:52, Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Ah: one other note. When you do something like this:
>>
>> ((contract (-> (list/c (box/c integer?)) any)
>>           (λ (x) (unbox (car x)))
>>           'pos 'neg)
>> (list (box "not an integer")))
>>
>> you get an error message that has this text in the middle:
>>
>>  in: the content of
>>      the 1st element of
>>      the 1st argument of
>>      (-> (list/c (box/c integer?)) any)
>>
>> This path information is collected in the blame records.
>>
>> So, instead of passing along just the blame record you got, call
>> "blame-add-context" so you get some stuff in that portion of the error
>> message.
>>
>> Maybe "a value passed on" or something like that would be a good
>> phrase? I usually look at a few examples to pick something.
>>
>> Otherwise, this looks good to merge to me (but I don't use the
>> generics as much as I should so if you wanted to you could try asking
>> for someone specifically knowledgeable to look there).
>>
>> If you don't, I can push the commit to the appropriate repo. Let me know.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lambda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, there are tests, and you can see them here.
>>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 13:29, Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This seemed okay, but just a quick read of the code. But did I miss
>>> the test cases? (I just followed the link upthread -- sorry if I need
>>> to look somewhere else too.)
>>>
>>> Robby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lambda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any update on this? If there’s anything that still needs to be changed, let
>>> me know—otherwise, I’ll patiently wait for the process to run its course.
>>> Just checking in.
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:15, Alexis King <lexi.lambda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, that makes sense, fixed.
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 05:37, Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One comment. The contract combinators are curried so that you can do
>>> work on the partial applications. So don't write this:
>>>
>>> (define ((((ho-val-first-projection
>>> impersonate/chaperone-async-channel) ctc) blame) val)
>>>
>>> instead try to do some work earlier, when you first can. (The most
>>> important thing is to minimize the work done after you get the 'val'
>>> argument.)
>>>
>>> Robby
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________
>>> Racket Developers list:
>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>>>
>>>
>