I think that we are just throwing up stumbling blocks. It is really a design choice (does a reprovide "carry over" the contract or does it put a new one on there?) and I seriously doubt there are any places where someone does a reprovide intending to change the contract in this manner. To the contrary, I expect that nearly every place where someone does a reprovide, they indented to use the exact same contract (with different parties now).
That is, I suspect that this choice is just making it easy for people to do the wrong thing (including me: every single contract in Redex was wrong) Robby On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > Yes, I think that is correct and somehow in line with our 'market force' > thinking. > > > On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> This means you think that re-providing should act like a >> provide/contract with the any/c contract (as it is currently >> (attempting) to do)? >> >> Robby >> >> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Matthias Felleisen >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> I think the bottom line is that we should stick to the explicit notion of >>> re-exporting and this 'feels' right given the general eq? problem. > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev