bad error message in get-* functions #6

> (get-tag "oi")
; car: contract violation
;   expected: pair?
;   given: "oi"

from my understanding, the define+provide+safe macro should be exporting get-tag with a contract that would raise an error blaming my call to get-tag not the hidden call to car. am I doing something wrong? or is this a bug in the sugar library? if so, the only way I know of fixing this is by using regular constructs like define/contract, hence the absence of an accompanying PR!

``` > (get-tag "oi") ; car: contract violation ; expected: pair? ; given: "oi" ``` from my understanding, the `define+provide+safe` macro should be exporting `get-tag` with a contract that would raise an error blaming my call to `get-tag` not the hidden call to `car`. am I doing something wrong? or is this a bug in the `sugar` library? if so, the only way I know of fixing this is by using regular constructs like `define/contract`, hence the absence of an accompanying PR!

To get the contract you have to import via the safe submodule:

#lang racket
(require (submod txexpr safe))
(get-tag "oi")

Result:

get-tag: contract violation
  expected: txexpr?
  given: "oi"
  in: the 1st argument of
      (-> txexpr? txexpr-tag?)
  contract from: 
      (txexpr/txexpr/base.rkt safe)
  blaming: anonymous-module
   (assuming the contract is correct)

To get the contract you have to import via the `safe` submodule: ```racket #lang racket (require (submod txexpr safe)) (get-tag "oi") ``` Result: ```racket get-tag: contract violation expected: txexpr? given: "oi" in: the 1st argument of (-> txexpr? txexpr-tag?) contract from: (txexpr/txexpr/base.rkt safe) blaming: anonymous-module (assuming the contract is correct) ```

ah, that's interesting! sorry for the noise.

Labels Milestones

bad error message in get-* functions #6