[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

From: Stevie Strickland (sstrickl at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 14 17:37:10 EST 2011

On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 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. 

Also agreed.  I'll see about coming up with an alternative over the weekend and sending out examples over the list before I make the change in the repository.


Posted on the dev mailing list.