[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

Two complaints in one day about the wording of these clauses. Let's do something about the English. 

I have another one, unrelated: I don't like the 'self-blame'. I have encountered this now a couple of times, and I think we should use the Eiffel terminology of 

 promised 
 required 
 ensured 

etc. This may just appeal to non-Racketeers when they see the contract violation reports. 




On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Casey Klein wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland <sstrickl at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>> No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace
>>> thru the module dag, you'll see it.
>> 
>> Just to check, are you talking about the second series of modules, or the first?  The problem in the first is likely a variation of PR11084, as Ryan said.  In the second, I get:
>> 
>> contract violation: expected <integer?>, given: 3.5
>>  contract on f from (file /Users/sstrickl/c.rkt) via (file /Users/sstrickl/a.rkt), blaming (file /Users/sstrickl/b.rkt)
>>  contract: (-> integer? integer?)
>>        at: /Users/sstrickl/c.rkt:4.1
>> 
>> and if I'm breaking that text down correctly, that's:
>> 
>> positive: c
>> user: a
>> negative: b
>> 
>> Which seems right to me, according to what I said.  That is, b entered into a contract with c about value f.  b reprovided f (with no contract) to a, who actually used the value via the expression `(f 3.5)'.
>> 
>> So a misused the value, but b was responsible for its misuse (since it gave it to a without any additional protection).  This is, of course, going by the interpretation of uncontracted reprovides being equivalent to reproviding with the contract any/c.
>> 
> 
> FWIW, I had no idea what the message's "via" clause meant.
> 
> I recognize that "blaming x" has a particular technical meaning, but
> the emphasis in the phrasing seems backwards -- the "via" module
> sounds like an innocent bystander to the "blaming" module's mistake,
> but it's precisely the other way around.
> 
> Regardless, though, I still think we need some way to re-export a
> contracted value that makes the re-importer the negative party on the
> contract.
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev