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.
Jay On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > > 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. > > Let's see whether the Lazy-Plain Racket experiment bears this out. -- > Matthias > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
