On Jan 15, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Casey Klein wrote: > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Stevie Strickland > <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> 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.
This sounds like a plain bug. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
