suzanne.soy/racket
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Revise that test. The current behavior is correct, if odd.

Browse Source 
svn: r13603
This commit is contained in:
Stevie Strickland 2009-02-15 08:40:54 +00:00
parent b6fdabcd73
commit 534c50d900
1 changed files with 9 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
collects/tests/units/test-unit-contracts.ss
View File

@ -784,5 +784,12 @@
(f 0)
(test-runtime-error exn:fail:contract? "top-level broke the contract on x"
(f 4))
(test-runtime-error exn:fail:contract? "foo@ broke the contract on x"
(f #t)))
;; This is a weird one. The definition for foo@ has two conflicting
;; contracts. Who gets blamed? Still the top-level, since foo@ can't
;; get blamed for breaking its own contract. In theory you could say
;; that perhaps the top-level shouldn't be blamed, and that it should
;; just be an "overriding" contract, but a) that won't really work and
;; b) what about other units that might link with foo@, that expect
;; the stronger contract?
(test-runtime-error exn:fail:contract? "top-level broke the contract on x"
(f #t)))