Eiffel: the language
A syntactic approach to type soundness
Information and Computation
Principals in programming languages: a syntactic proof technique
Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
Contracts for higher-order functions
Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
Sound and complete models of contracts
Journal of Functional Programming
Interlanguage migration: from scripts to programs
Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications
Well-Typed Programs Can't Be Blamed
ESOP '09 Proceedings of the 18th European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems: Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2009
Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Correct blame for contracts: no more scapegoating
Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
On contract satisfaction in a higher-order world
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Gradual typing for first-class classes
Proceedings of the ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications
Constraining delimited control with contracts
ESOP'13 Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on Programming Languages and Systems
Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages & applications
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
A behavioral contract in a higher-order language may invoke methods of unknown objects. Although this expressive power allows programmers to formulate sophisticated contracts, it also poses a problem for language designers. Indeed, two distinct semantics have emerged for such method calls, dubbed lax and picky. While lax fails to protect components in certain scenarios, picky may blame an uninvolved party for a contract violation. In this paper, we present complete monitoring as the fundamental correctness criterion for contract systems. It demands correct blame assignment as well as complete monitoring of all channels of communication between components. According to this criterion, lax and picky are indeed incorrect ways to monitor contracts. A third semantics, dubbed indy, emerges as the only correct variant.