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

Fixes #2219: correct the contract for rem

Browse Source 
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.
This commit is contained in:
Sorawee Porncharoenwase 2020-04-23 04:41:44 -07:00 committed by Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
parent f6f5cafed1
commit b0cb1adda6
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/contracts/examples/3.rkt
View File

@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
[rem (->d ([d dictionary?] [rem (->d ([d dictionary?]
[k (and/c symbol? (lambda (k) (has? d k)))]) [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 #:post-cond
(= (count d) (+ (count result) 1)))])) (= (count d) (+ (count result) 1)))]))
;; end of interface ;; end of interface