"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.") While having the name
of who's to blame is certainly preferable, it's not clear to me why
the term should be inapplicable if we don't.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Oct 31 2006 - 12:34:34 UTC