<div dir="ltr">I don't get why TR should use a custom contract instead of case-> providing better error messages.<div><br></div><div style>You get the same error message with:</div><div style><br></div><div style><div> #lang racket</div><div><br></div><div>(define/contract (f) (case->) 2)</div><div>(f 2)</div><div style>;(f)</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Matthias Felleisen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@ccs.neu.edu" target="_blank">matthias@ccs.neu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br> On Feb 5, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:<br> <br> >><br> >> In 5.3.2, when running untyped.rkt, I get:<br> >><br> >> #<case-lambda-procedure>: arity mismatch;<br> >> the expected number of arguments does not match the given number<br> >> given: 1<br> >> arguments...:<br> >> 5<br> ><br> > I agree that this error message is bad. It's a result of changing the<br> > type `Procedure` to use the contract `(case->)`. Maybe we should use a<br> > custom contract here instead that produces a better error message.<br> <br> <br> </div>AMEN!<br> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">____________________<br> Racket Users list:<br> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>