On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace >> thru the module dag, you'll see it. > > Just to check, are you talking about the second series of modules, or the > first? The problem in the first is likely a variation of PR11084, as Ryan > said. In the second, I get: > > contract violation: expected <integer?>, given: 3.5 > contract on f from (file /Users/sstrickl/c.rkt) via (file > /Users/sstrickl/a.rkt), blaming (file /Users/sstrickl/b.rkt) > contract: (-> integer? integer?) > at: /Users/sstrickl/c.rkt:4.1 > > and if I'm breaking that text down correctly, that's: > > positive: c > user: a > negative: b > > Which seems right to me, according to what I said. That is, b entered into a > contract with c about value f. b reprovided f (with no contract) to a, who > actually used the value via the expression `(f 3.5)'. > > So a misused the value, but b was responsible for its misuse (since it gave > it to a without any additional protection). This is, of course, going by the > interpretation of uncontracted reprovides being equivalent to reproviding > with the contract any/c. >
FWIW, I had no idea what the message's "via" clause meant. I recognize that "blaming x" has a particular technical meaning, but the emphasis in the phrasing seems backwards -- the "via" module sounds like an innocent bystander to the "blaming" module's mistake, but it's precisely the other way around. Regardless, though, I still think we need some way to re-export a contracted value that makes the re-importer the negative party on the contract. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
