Robby Findler <robby_at_cs.uchicago.edu> writes:
> My only point is that "the caller" is not identified. Recording enough
> information to be able to identify the caller (say, the name of the
> library where the call was made), seems to require somehow specializing
> each primitive to the library where it occurs, and I'm not sure how to
> implement that efficiently.
>
> Does that make sense?
Not at all. As I understand it, PLT contracts are attached to the
called procedure. When the contract is broken, the caller is blamed.
(Leaving aside for a moment the various subtleties.) However, the
caller is not identified explicitly. How is this different from what
the draft says?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Oct 31 2006 - 11:53:08 UTC