[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> So far as I understand it, we have: Stevie opposed, Matthias neutral,
> Robby and Casey for, with everyone agreeing that we should try to
> preserve the "Carl constraints" of 'single contract wrapper' and 'same
> identifier-ness'.
>
> Note that in the current world we are *forced* to break the first of
> the Carl constraints. So I consider this a bonus if we achieve it (and
> so if we don't in some cases, I don't think we should care).
>
> Is that a correct summary of the status?

Given the performance impacts of rewrapping, it seems like solving
that problem should be a prerequisite for changing the semantics of
`provide' to automatically add non-trivial contracts.  I think it
would be pretty problematic to suddenly add repeated list traversals
to any code that reprovides identifiers.
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu