[plt-scheme] The role of contracts in the maintenance and ongoing development of DrScheme

From: Doug Williams (m.douglas.williams at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 13:10:11 EST 2008

Well, I do use contracts for the vast majority of the code in the science
collection.  I think it's a good way to capture most of the constraints
within real code.  But, I still like being able to accept the consequences
of not using it.  And, if someone chooses to bypass it, the term
"unchecked-" in the identifier is as good a clue as I know how to give.  I'm
open to suggestions.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>

> On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
> I also don't recommend calling the unchecked version of the code unless
> you are TOTALLY willing to accept the consequences.
> I understand what you recommend but sadly, blame is primarily expressed by
> the error message. And if it says the error happened in your module, then
> the casual user will start debugging there. For all you know, the person who
> actually created the final product and is responsible for the unchecked
> calls isn't the user who discovers the bug. It's some innocent third-party
> client who bought the package for mega-bucks to run some Wall Street trading
> firm.
> -- Matthias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20080125/a9e0261f/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.