[racket-dev] Removing Xexpr preference from Web Server

11 hours ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
> 
>     Who should be blamed if the coercion does not return a response?
> 
> 
> The provider of the coercion should be blamed, but that is not possible [I
> think] so the positive party of the whole dynamic/c is blamed.
>  
> 
>     Is there a contract on current-response/c? (I assume that the "/c"
>     there is a misnomer and it really is a parameter that holds a
>     contact/coercion, not a contract.)
> 
> 
> current-response/c is contracted with (parameter/c contract?)

From a bypasser POV, I see something that involves three contracts
combined somehow, where one contract is coming from a parameter that
is itself contracted... and my first thought is that I sure hope I
won't need to deal with all of that when I want to just use the thing.

What's unclear to me is why is all of this necessary in contrast to a
(contracted) parameter that holds a coercion function?

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!