On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Robby Findler wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > Matthias: I believe that this is the behavior you were arguing for upthread.
Thanks for putting it so plain. Casey writes: (1) the client of redex breaks one of the contracts. (2) redex gets blamed These two sentences next to each other made no sense to me, whatsoever. Now I understand what they mean: (1) the client breaks the contract of 'private' module A (2) and the redex 'super' module M gets blamed because it re-exports all of A's functionality with any/c I understand, and yes, this is my preference. But as I have said before, I can see a case for convenience -- as long as Carl's constraints are satisfied too. -- Matthias _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev