Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 19:01:02 +0300
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 18:58, Gašper Ažman <gasper.azman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Such a rule does exist.
> First time I hear of this - in fact, as far as I know, different parameters for the "parametrized abstract machine" are to my knowledge just considered incompatible. Where is this rule?
The contracts specification specifies them to be compatible. And
doesn't provide any rule that would make them incompatible. The
implementation
options that control contract evaluation semantics don't seem to be
the kind of "parameters of the abstract machine" that you speak of.
>
> > Such a rule does exist.
> First time I hear of this - in fact, as far as I know, different parameters for the "parametrized abstract machine" are to my knowledge just considered incompatible. Where is this rule?
The contracts specification specifies them to be compatible. And
doesn't provide any rule that would make them incompatible. The
implementation
options that control contract evaluation semantics don't seem to be
the kind of "parameters of the abstract machine" that you speak of.
Received on 2025-10-20 16:01:15