Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:21:57 -0400
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 5:16 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 00:13, Louis Dionne <ldionne.2_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Ville, FWIW, I think we're in agreement here (at least to some extent)
> -- see my reply to your previous email.
>
> Unpossible. I was told that library vendors patently disagree with
> what my paper says. :D
>
> So far I have three out of three agreeing with me. C'est drĂ´le, n'est-ce
> pas?
>
I do think your papers makes claims that are incorrect w.r.t. the usability
of Contracts or their natural fit for being used with hardening. I disagree
with those parts of the paper, I just chose not to highlight that in my
reply.
However, the one normative thing you propose in your paper is the change to
disallow observe, and I think that is sensible.
Louis
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 00:13, Louis Dionne <ldionne.2_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Ville, FWIW, I think we're in agreement here (at least to some extent)
> -- see my reply to your previous email.
>
> Unpossible. I was told that library vendors patently disagree with
> what my paper says. :D
>
> So far I have three out of three agreeing with me. C'est drĂ´le, n'est-ce
> pas?
>
I do think your papers makes claims that are incorrect w.r.t. the usability
of Contracts or their natural fit for being used with hardening. I disagree
with those parts of the paper, I just chose not to highlight that in my
reply.
However, the one normative thing you propose in your paper is the change to
disallow observe, and I think that is sensible.
Louis
Received on 2025-10-14 21:22:25
