[racket] Typed Racket procedure wrapping?

From: Asumu Takikawa (asumu at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 9 21:07:12 EST 2013

On 2013-02-06 06:34:42 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
>    You don't get the same message-- the expected line is gone somehow.

The expected line is gone here because there's no number that would make
sense. A `(case-lambda)` has no applicable arity (in particular, it's
not zero).

Maybe the arity error should say "unapplicable function"?

Also, by a custom contract, I meant one that would produce a message
about not allowing unknown procedures through rather than raising an
obscure arity error.


Posted on the users mailing list.