On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> do you think this change I'm suggesting (act as if the contract were written >> a second time) is the right behavior > > > > 1. My personal preference is to ask programmers to re-provide identifiers > with explicit contracts that are ideally stated and specified in a separate > 'contracts.rkt' file per collects/project basis. I.e., the current world is > my preference.
Writing programs like this means that what I'm talking about won't really have an effect either way. > > > 2. I am not strictly opposed to your suggestion because I see value in your > reasoning. If we go with re-providing the identifier with its contract, I > would like to see the blame assignment shifted to the re-exporting module. Of course. > This does leave us with the "Carl" question: > > who is going to be blamed when module C imports f from A and (re-provided > from) B? As I pointed out in my reply to Stevie, this is not a new question and the answer has to come for either design choice. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
