From b0cb1adda6f9d48a6a7e4b8498aec262ce904150 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sorawee Porncharoenwase Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:41:44 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fixes #2219: correct the contract for rem I didn't use the suggested fix by either @Syntacticlosure or @mfelleisen because there's another usage of `not-has?` which is correct already, so changing `not-has?` would break it. --- pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/contracts/examples/3.rkt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/contracts/examples/3.rkt b/pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/contracts/examples/3.rkt index 10aa60a556..560b59f48a 100644 --- a/pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/contracts/examples/3.rkt +++ b/pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/contracts/examples/3.rkt @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ [rem (->d ([d dictionary?] [k (and/c symbol? (lambda (k) (has? d k)))]) () - [result (and/c dictionary? not-has?)] + [result (and/c dictionary? (lambda (d) ((not-has? d) k)))] #:post-cond (= (count d) (+ (count result) 1)))])) ;; end of interface