[plt-scheme] Attaching contracts to unit exports

On 3/2/07, John Clements <clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> The negative position is the left side of the arrow. The positive
> position is the right side of the arrow.  Since these positions can
> themselves be arrow types, you can talk about the positive position
> of a negative position.  In this example
>
> ((a -> b) -> (c -> d))
>
> The letter 'b' occurs in the positive position of a negative
> position.  The letter 'c' appears in the negative position of a
> positive position.
>
> The distinction here is on how many "negative links" you have to
> follow to get to the given type.  In this type, 'b' and 'c' both
> require following one negative link. That means that the function's
> caller is responsible, since one is an odd number.  'a' requires
> following two negative links.  Two is an even number, so the function
> itself is responsible .  'd' requires following zero negative links,
> so again the function itself is responsible.
>

That's crystal clear to me now and it makes sense with regard to the
paper. But it still puzzles me what's the negative-blame or
positive-blame in the contract API. Since they are symbols I can only
imagine one is the symbol identifying the function and the other is a
symbol identifying the callers. First, I cannot see how one can
identify the latter when writing the contract code (this should be
done at run time) and then I cannot understand why call it positive
blame or negative blame. Well, I just ran this code:
(module test mzscheme

  (require (lib "contract.ss"))

  (define greater-than-nine?
    (lambda (n)
      (and (integer? n) (> n 9))))

  (define between-zero-and-ninety-nine?
    (lambda (n)
      (<= 0 n 99)))

  (define g
    (lambda (f) (f 0)))

  (define g/contract
    (contract
     ((greater-than-nine? . -> . between-zero-and-ninety-nine?) . -> .
between-zero-and-ninety-nine?)
     g
     'positive-blame 'negative-blame)))

> (g/contract (lambda (x) x))

I get a positive-blame, when changing g to be (lambda (f) (f 10)) and then
> (g/contract (lambda (x) -10))

I get negative-blame. So, can I deduce that you can a positive-blame
when blaming the function to which the contract is attached and a
negative blame when blaming its caller?

If yes, why call this positive or negative? It doesn't seem to have
any thing to do about being on the right or left side of the arrow.

> Corrections welcome,
>
> John
>
>
>


-- 
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK