On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > So, let me ask this: Stevie, do you think that the current world for > re-provided bindings is the right design decision (ie act as if they > were all written like (provide/contract [f any/c])), or do you think > this change I'm suggesting (act as if the contract were written a > second time) is the right behavior (assuming we can solve the > performance and single-binding issues Carl raised).
I think the current contract system shows what I consider to be the right design decision, which is that provide works like p/c any/c. However, the point of the "user" blame (which was the old negative blame, and I think the blame you're arguing for) was that I see the value in having the party that eventually used the value as well as the party that explicitly agreed to the contract, especially for debugging purposes. Stevie _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
