[plt-scheme] Contract Error Message

Shouldn't they check that their arguments are *contracts*?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Matthias Felleisen<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:40 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
>
>> Carl Eastlund wrote:
>>>
>>> What you wrote was a perfectly acceptable contract that functioned
>>> perfectly, except that it wasn't the one you meant it to be.  What
>>> alternate behavior would you propose?
>>
>> Actually, Paulo broke the contract on or/c, so this could have a better
>> error message without changes to the contract language.
>
> Correct. The contract combinators could check that their arguments are
> functions of 1 argument. -- Matthias
>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>