[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

From: Stevie Strickland (sstrickl at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 15 13:31:30 EST 2011

On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> So, let me ask this: Stevie, do you think that the current world for
> re-provided bindings is the right design decision (ie act as if they
> were all written like (provide/contract [f any/c])), or do you think
> this change I'm suggesting (act as if the contract were written a
> second time) is the right behavior (assuming we can solve the
> performance and single-binding issues Carl raised).

I think the current contract system shows what I consider to be the right design decision, which is that provide works like p/c any/c.  However, the point of the "user" blame (which was the old negative blame, and I think the blame you're arguing for) was that I see the value in having the party that eventually used the value as well as the party that explicitly agreed to the contract, especially for debugging purposes.


Posted on the dev mailing list.