Jacqueline Firth

That example works because `(+ "asdf" 2")` is evaluated before being passed as an argument to `check-true`, so the error isn't thrown from within the body of `check-true`. Try this...

@bennn Added docs and addressed all your comments (I think), this PR is ready for a final review.

@AlexKnauth How about `check-fail/error`? According to scheme pronunciation rules, that's "check fail with error" which seems accurate.

@bennn For some reason I can't respond directly to your comments about `procedure-arity-includes?`. I added the arity check in `contract-pred-or-msg!` so I don't think it needs to be tested in...

@rmculpepper Thanks for taking a look at this! Here are my thoughts: A `rackunit/meta` module is a good idea, but why stop there? Should there be `rackunit/base`, `rackunit/check`, `rackunit/suite`, or...

Re `rackunit/meta`: I will move these exports to `rackunit/meta` and *not* export them from `rackunit`. This PR will not attempt to add a `rackunit/base` module or make any changes to...

I'd like to get this feature in and it seems I'm the only one doubting a tree API, so I shall defer to your judgment. Tree API it is! With...

Just printing like this would be fine with me: ``` -------------------- FAILURE name: check-fail? location: foo.rkt:4:0 actual: 1 expected: 0 actual: 1 expected: 2 -------------------- ``` Anything more complicated I'd...

This is ready for another review. Now, the only export of `rackunit/meta` is `check-fail`. It accepts a tree of predicates, regexps, and check info values. Here is a sample use...

Sorting and grouping infos in the failure message is now implemented.