[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] blame assignment for contract violations

[Robby Findler]

At Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:34:34 +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> 
> "Carl Eastlund" <cce at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> 
> > If module B needs to be sure of module C, it needs to add a contract
> > to the point where it hands off F, so that C will be blamed for
> > violating that additional contract before B gets blamed for the
> > original one.
> >
> > Does that clarify the issue?
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
> Now, I confirm the current draft does not identify the entity that's
> to blame explicitly.  However, *some* entity broke the contract with
> the entity named in the call to `contract-violation'.  As Robby
> pointed out, identifying who's to blame is tricky.  (And the notion
> you describe makes sense formally, but certainly other notions as to
> who's to blame may be equally useful.  Your notion doesn't always
> coincide with "what code needs to be fixed.") 

It should however coincide with "either the code of the contract needs
to be fixed".

(more in a separate message)

Robby