On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Stevie Strickland <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> I think that we are just throwing up stumbling blocks. It is really a >> design choice (does a reprovide "carry over" the contract or does it >> put a new one on there?) and I seriously doubt there are any places >> where someone does a reprovide intending to change the contract in >> this manner. To the contrary, I expect that nearly every place where >> someone does a reprovide, they indented to use the exact same contract >> (with different parties now). > > This is possible, but _which_ parties? Do you wish to export internals > through an external interface that should now take on the positive blame, so > that you don't leak your internals (via module names and such used as blame > parties)? This seems to me what you'd want for something like redex [...]
No, that's not the use case. There are three modules, each of which is an external interface: 1. redex/reduction-semantics, which provides the non-GUI portion of Redex, 2. redex/pict, which provides the typesetting utilities, and 3. redex, which provides all of redex/reduction-semantics and redex/pict, plus some more. The redex module does an all-from-out provide on what it gets from redex/reduction-semantics and redex/pict, making it the negative party on the contracts. When a redex client breaks one of the contracts, redex gets blamed instead of the client. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
