[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

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.

Stevie