[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 15 12:19:05 EST 2011

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).

That is, I suspect that this choice is just making it easy for people
to do the wrong thing (including me: every single contract in Redex
was wrong)


On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Matthias Felleisen
<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> Yes, I think that is correct and somehow in line with our 'market force' thinking.
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> This means you think that re-providing should act like a
>> provide/contract with the any/c contract (as it is currently
>> (attempting) to do)?
>> Robby
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>> I think the bottom line is that we should stick to the explicit notion of re-exporting and this 'feels' right given the general eq? problem.

Posted on the dev mailing list.