On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stevie Strickland > <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >>> 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. >>> 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? >> >> It'll be a syntax error. There's no way to change the positive blame >> information for the contract form that an identifier will expand into >> without changing the binding information. That's why it'd have to be an >> explicit operation, even if it's inexpensive because the work is done at >> syntax time (just changing the syntax transformer) and not trying to >> recontract the already contracted value with new blame information. > > This is not a syntax error at the moment and already something that can > happen. > > In particular, if I call 'f' with the wrong arguments, it may or may > not say "via B" in the error message.
That's the user blame changing, _not_ the positive blame. I assumed that Matthias meant that he'd like to see the _positive_ blame shifted to the re-exporting module, which would cause the issue. Stevie _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
