[racket] buggy error information for keyword args in 5.0?

Thanks for the quick service!

Should I just be filing bug reports for things like this, or is it
good to mention them on the list? I hesitate to file most things,
because I'm not always sure they're bugs, but this one was pretty
obvious. (And if I'd searched I probably would have discovered it had
already been filed, but Matthew might not have been reminded and fixed
it so quickly.)

I guess my question is, for someone at my level of use (not a PLT
developer by a long shot, but a pretty regular user) what should I do
if I see something that looks like a bug?

Todd

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> Sorry that I lost track of that one --- fix pushed.
>
> At Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:37:32 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> This is PR 10954.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Todd O'Bryan <toddobryan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Here's a minimal example of what I think is a bug:
>> >
>> > #lang racket
>> >
>> > (define (blah #:foo foo #:bar bar)
>> >  (+ foo 2))
>> >
>> > (blah #:bar 3)
>> >
>> > Running it causes:
>> >
>> > blah: requires an argument with keyword #:foo, not supplied; x:
>> > expects type <x> as 1st argument, given: 'x; other arguments were:
>> > '#:bar 3
>> >
>> > where the error information involving x is just bizarre. I'm guessing
>> > that's not intended behavior...
>> >
>> > Todd
>> > _________________________________________________
>> >  For list-related administrative tasks:
>> >  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> sam th
>> samth at ccs.neu.edu
>> _________________________________________________
>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>