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

From: Robby Findler <robby>
Date: Tue Oct 31 12:38:51 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)

Robby
Received on Tue Oct 31 2006 - 12:37:35 UTC