This sentence makes no sense to me. Contracts are all about where things come from. How can it be irrelevant?
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > But Casey says the _client_ broke the contract. It's irrelevant where things > come from when the client breaks the contracts. > > > > On Jan 16, 2011, at 11:06 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Matthias Felleisen >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 15, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Casey Klein wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Stevie Strickland >>>> <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>>> On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >>>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> This is possible, but _which_ parties? Do you wish to export internals >>>>> through an external interface that should now take on the positive blame, >>>>> so that you don't leak your internals (via module names and such used as >>>>> blame parties)? This seems to me what you'd want for something like >>>>> redex [...] >>>> >>>> No, that's not the use case. >>>> >>>> There are three modules, each of which is an external interface: >>>> >>>> 1. redex/reduction-semantics, which provides the non-GUI portion of Redex, >>>> 2. redex/pict, which provides the typesetting utilities, and >>>> 3. redex, which provides all of redex/reduction-semantics and >>>> redex/pict, plus some more. >>>> >>>> The redex module does an all-from-out provide on what it gets from >>>> redex/reduction-semantics and redex/pict, making it the negative party >>>> on the contracts. When a redex client breaks one of the contracts, >>>> redex gets blamed instead of the client. >>> >>> This sounds like a plain bug. >> >> That's not a bug. The redex module entered into a contract, then >> passed those values on to the client without protecting them at all. >> If something goes wrong, redex is to blame. >> >> --Carl > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
