I believe that this line of discussion is on target. Interoperability is between boundaries. Our contract system is really good at finding and interposing between these boundaries, so it is natural to use it in that way. There is a notion of blame in interoperability too, when the cast fails.<div> <br></div><div>Jay<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Matthias Felleisen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@ccs.neu.edu">matthias@ccs.neu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <br> The interoperability comment just hit me. What we might be discovering is basically Jacob's thesis in practice. It isn't so much contracts+X that we're looking at to implement interoperability, but contracts = interop-stuff + blame-mechnism + possibly-more. Jay is trying to reuse the first part of this sum -- for purposes that Jacob's thesis seems to imply: contract-like stuff is good to establish interop invariants.<br> <br> Let's see whether the Lazy-Plain Racket experiment bears this out. -- Matthias<br> <div><div></div><div class="h5"><br> _________________________________________________<br> For list-related administrative tasks:<br> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jay McCarthy <<a href="mailto:jay@cs.byu.edu" target="_blank">jay@cs.byu.edu</a>><br>Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University<br><a href="http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay" target="_blank">http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay</a><br> <br>"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93<br> </div>