On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Casey Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Stevie Strickland <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Casey Klein wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> I'm not necessarily in disagreement, but currently I think this should be an >> explicit action. > > Explicit is fine with me. I just want to avoid giving names to all the > contracts and re-applying them in the re-provider.
FWIW, I'm currently in the 'implicit' camp. (Yes this is a switch for me.) I think that most of the time that you re-provide something you really wanted to put the same contract on it, so it seems like we should make that easy. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
