Okay, I'll push has-blame? and value-blame. Let me know if there are any problems.
Robby On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > Yes, I think this would allow all the optimizations that Eric talked about. > > Sam > > On Jun 13, 2014 4:26 AM, "Robby Findler" <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> > wrote: >> >> Would it be useful to get blame information back from a value, just >> like you can currently get the contract back? >> >> Robby >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> > >> > I was thinking of associating the contract with the type from which it >> > comes and no that's not hash-consing. And if it's slower, too bad. -- >> > Matthias >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen >> >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Eric, are you talking about changing the proxy values that wrap >> >>>>> HO/mutable >> >>>>> contracted values? >> >>>> Yes. I want the proxy values to include information about who agreed >> >>>> to the contract in addition to the contract agreed to. >> >>>> >> >>>> I actually realize that I might need more than just the contract >> >>>> agreed to because of how TR changes the generated contract to remove >> >>>> checks for what it guarantees, so that info is not in the contract. >> >>>> But I believe that can be added back as a structure property on the >> >>>> contract. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Would some form of hash-consing contracts work here? -- Matthias >> >>> >> >> >> >> I don't think so. But not sure exactly what you are proposing. >> >> >> >> The issue is that there are 4 contracts here and 2 of them currently >> >> do not exist at runtime. The 4 are TRs checks/promises on an >> >> export/import. (Using import for a value flowing into an exported >> >> function). The promise contracts do not currently exist as removing >> >> them was my previous optimization (They never fail). What I want to do >> >> is change the check on import from (array/c symbol?) to (if/c >> >> (protected>? (array/c symbol?)) any/c (array/c symbol?)). Where >> >> (protected>? x/c) checks if TR already promised something stronger >> >> than x/c. >> >> >> >> I believe that you are proposing that we can use the identity of the >> >> contract returned by value-contract to determine what the promised >> >> contract would have been. This does not work as (Array Symbol) and >> >> (Array Float) both get translated to (array/c any/c) for export, and >> >> we would want to lookup different promised contracts for them. We >> >> could use weak hash map as an extra field but that seems like it would >> >> be slow. >> > >> > >> > _________________________ >> > Racket Developers list: >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev