I only thought of it because the first thing I tried was to break the
chaperone invariant, thinking that 2 might already have been the behavior.
I only came up with the access control variant when that didn't work.
Sam
On Jul 25, 2014 6:04 AM, "Matthew Flatt" wrote:
> Unless I still have it wron
Unless I still have it wrong, the implementation of 2 was
straightforward.
I would have overlooked the need to restrict `chaperone-struct` to
chaperones of accessors and mutators if you hadn't mentioned it.
At Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:45:18 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Consider the following mo
Yes, true!
Robby
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> Struct chaperones are the important part, I think.
>
> But the theorem would be false under option 1, I think. Adding contracts can
> add non-contract errors -- the error you get when a you supply the wrong
> accessor
Struct chaperones are the important part, I think.
But the theorem would be false under option 1, I think. Adding contracts
can add non-contract errors -- the error you get when a you supply the
wrong accessor for struct-chaperone.
Sam
On Jul 24, 2014 7:54 PM, "Robby Findler"
wrote:
> Ah, nope.
Ah, nope. That model doesn't include function chaperones!
Robby
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I also lean towards #2. What does the redex model say? Most of those
> pieces are in it, I think.
>
> Robby
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> Nice e
I also lean towards #2. What does the redex model say? Most of those
pieces are in it, I think.
Robby
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Nice example. Offhand, I think that #2 is right, but I'll have to look
> at it more to be sure.
>
> At Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:45:18 -0400, Sa
Thinking about it more, I think it has to be #2, since otherwise:
(module m1 racket
(struct x (a))
(provide (contract-out (struct x ([a integer?]
(module m2 racket
(require 'm1)
(provide (contract-out (struct x ([a even?]
won't work, which seems like something that should be supp
Nice example. Offhand, I think that #2 is right, but I'll have to look
at it more to be sure.
At Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:45:18 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Consider the following module:
>
> (module m racket
> (struct x [a])
> (define v1 (x 'secret))
> (define v2 (x 'public))
> (provid
Consider the following module:
(module m racket
(struct x [a])
(define v1 (x 'secret))
(define v2 (x 'public))
(provide v1 v2)
(provide/contract [x-a (-> x? (not/c 'secret))]))
It appears that this ensures that you can't get 'secret. But, it turns
out that I can write a function outside
9 matches
Mail list logo
