On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 15, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> >> wrote: >> >> But if you want to know more about how they could be different, you >> might want to consider this example from section 1 of the paper. It >> will (randomly) assign blame to any of the three submodules. > > Hmm. That example is helpful to see, but I’m still a little confused. > How is its behavior any different from a picky dependent contract?
Picky would never assign blame to m1. The places where m1 would be blamed would instead fall on, I think, m2. > It seems to me like that behavior would be the same, but I can’t > know for sure, since Racket does not provide a picky dependent > contract combinator. It wouldn't be too difficult to break the current ->i to get something that behaves like picky if you want to experiment, but really the difference is that indy brings in the third party. That third party replaces the negative party for uses of the values that are depended on (so, in the example, the two blame parties for the uses `f` and `fp` in m1 are m1 and m3, but the two parties for uses of `f` in m2 are m2 and m3 -- picky just always uses m2/m3). Robby -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
