No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace thru the module dag, you'll see it.
Robby On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Stevie Strickland <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> as far as the contract library is concerned, but now I'm starting to >> think that that is not convenient enough. Instead, we should really >> default to 'provide f with the same contract it had before, as if the >> programmer had copied and pasted the contract' (so change the blame >> labels) instead of the more high-falutin' interpretation I had before. > > To some extent, this is what the "user" label was supposed to signify. That > is, the negative blame stays "correct" (by our high-flautin' interpretation), > but you also get additional blame that tells you if that value flowed to a > different region of code that used it. This latter information is often more > precise, and is exactly the old negative information. That is, the blame > information you'd get when you don't consider simple reprovides as entering > into the contract and reproviding with any/c. > > Just to check, we are still printing out the "user" blame information when it > differs from the negative blame, right? (I know there's been work done on > changing the contract messages, but I haven't tried it out yet.) > > Stevie _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
