(sending this e-mail to dev since it's not directly related to promise/c) On 2012-07-10 22:13:58 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > Note that this means the guard on there is now going to be gone (as it > is meaningless since impersonators can arbitrarily change it).
This is something that has confused me about impersonators on struct type property accessors. It seems like there is a use case for having an impersonatable property that still has a guard. For example, suppose the property and its accessor are defined and retained local to some module (for example, to store a generic method access table). This means that nobody outside of the module can impersonate the property through the accessor. Assuming your module itself upholds whatever invariants you expect of the property guard, it's not going to be arbitrarily violated. For example, with generics it might be desirable to have optional polymorphic contracts applied to methods in the method table. Since polymorphic contracts are impersonator contracts, the proxy on the method table property itself must be an impersonator. However, this impersonation doesn't violate the invariants of the method table property guard, which just ensures that the user provided valid methods for the method table. Maybe I'm missing something obvious though? Cheers, Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
