<!-- MORE -->
-After exploring [a "validity"-based model]({% post_url 2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation %}) last year, I am going to be looking at an "alias"-based model this year.
+After exploring [a "validity"-based model]({% post_url 2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation %}) last year, I am going to be looking at an "access"-based model this year.
That's the kind of model @arielb1, @ubsan and others have been proposing, and I am going to build on top of their work and hopefully come up with something we can actually implement a checker for
(staying true to the [vision I laid out previously]({% post_url 2017-06-06-MIR-semantics %}) that we should have an executable operational semantics for MIR, including its [undefined behavior]({% post_url 2017-07-14-undefined-behavior %})).
-Expect a blog post soon for what I mean by "validity"-based vs. "alias"-based, and for a first draft of such an "alias"-based model.
+Expect a blog post soon for what I mean by "validity"-based vs. "alias"-based, and for a first draft of such an "access"-based model.
Until then, stay tuned!