Right. (My contracts+X comment was a "view from underneath" comment. I was thinking that the documentation system, for example, might have to change to extract the contract part of these new things and show that to the user since I expect the coercion part to be something that is an internal implementation aspect (but still waiting for some help from Jay on that point).)
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:46 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 > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
