11 hours ago, Jay McCarthy wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> > wrote: > > Who should be blamed if the coercion does not return a response? > > > The provider of the coercion should be blamed, but that is not possible [I > think] so the positive party of the whole dynamic/c is blamed. > > > Is there a contract on current-response/c? (I assume that the "/c" > there is a misnomer and it really is a parameter that holds a > contact/coercion, not a contract.) > > > current-response/c is contracted with (parameter/c contract?)
From a bypasser POV, I see something that involves three contracts combined somehow, where one contract is coming from a parameter that is itself contracted... and my first thought is that I sure hope I won't need to deal with all of that when I want to just use the thing. What's unclear to me is why is all of this necessary in contrast to a (contracted) parameter that holds a coercion function? -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev