Also, fix FFI procedures to preserve names: change `ptr-ref' with
`_fpointer' on an `ffi-obj' value to return the `ffi-obj'
value, so that the name in the `ffi-obj' value can be used
by `_cprocedure'.
Closes PR 12645
The new predicates are `progress-evt?' `thread-cell-values?',
`prefab-key?', `semaphore-peek-evt?', and `channel-put-evt?'.
These were used internally, and now they appear in contract
error messages.
A common Slideshow pattern is to put a subset of slides in its
own module with a `run-slides' function, and then you'd
(un)comment a `(run-slides)' call at the end of the module to
work on the subset by itself. Now, you can write
`(module+ main (run-slides))' atthe end of the module and not
have to comment it out. Adding `main' support to the `slideshow'
executable makes it more consistent with using `racket' directly.
Checking first for a `slideshow' submodule makes it possible
for `slideshow' and `racket' to do different things, in case
that's useful.
When supplying an accessor to redirect, either the corresponding field
must be accessible through the current inspector, or a mutator for
the same field must be redirected, too.
Stevie realized that we need this constraint; otherwise, impersonators
can implement mutator-like behavior even when the mutator is otherwise
secret.
Add `raise-argument-error', `raise-result-error', `raise-arguments-error',
and `raise-range-error'.
The old convention was designed for reporting on a single (sometimes very
long line). The new convention is
<name>: <short message>
<field>: <detail>
...
If <detail> is long or itself spans multiple lines, then it may
also use the form
<field>:
<detail>
where each line of <detail> is indented by 3 spaces.
Backtrace information is shown as a multi-line "context" field.
The text that says that (regexp-split #rx"whatever" "") returns '("")
rather than '() is
If `input' contains no matches [...] the result is a list containing
input’s content [...] as a single element.
This is a little implicit, if you consider such an input as having
nothing left to match over so it's as if there is no input (with a port
this confusion is a little clearer).
Clarify with an example in the docs, and also add tests.
Various repairs --- especially to avoid duplicated prose.
Instead of
@(define explain @t{Long explanation about X...})
@defproc[(a ....) ....]{ .... @|explain| }
@defproc[(b ....) ....]{ .... @|explain| }
@defproc[(c ....) ....]{ .... @|explain| }
write
@defproc[(a ....) ....]{ .... Long explanation about X ... }
@defproc[(b ....) ....]{ .... X is like @racket[a]. }
@defproc[(c ....) ....]{ .... X is like @racket[a]. }
Otherwise, a reader is forced to reverse-engineer the
abstraction underlying `a', `b', and `c'.
