[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] blame assignment for contract violations
robby at cs.uchicago.edu
Tue Oct 31 12:37:35 EST 2006
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)
More information about the r6rs-discuss