ammendments go into the forum

[web.git] / ralf / _posts / 2017-07-17-types-as-contracts.md

diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2017-07-17-types-as-contracts.md b/ralf/_posts/2017-07-17-types-as-contracts.md
index 125a1aa6b220aed6a94f1607f3a0c5b8c4635a6a..d11e77b91a0c7dcc751df1e475234fcf0cc2ca80 100644 (file)
--- a/ralf/_posts/2017-07-17-types-as-contracts.md
+++ b/ralf/_posts/2017-07-17-types-as-contracts.md
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ Congratulations!
 You have reached the end of this blog post.
 Thanks a lot for reading.
 If you have any comments, please raise them -- the entire purpose of this post is to get the proposal out there so that we can see if this approach can suit the needs of Rust programmers and compiler writers alike.
 You have reached the end of this blog post.
 Thanks a lot for reading.
 If you have any comments, please raise them -- the entire purpose of this post is to get the proposal out there so that we can see if this approach can suit the needs of Rust programmers and compiler writers alike.

-If there are explanations you think are missing or confusing, please bring that up as well; I may then update this post accordingly.
+If there are explanations you think are missing or confusing, please bring that up as well; I may then update this post accordingly or add a note in the [forum](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/types-as-contracts/5562) for any ammendments that turned out to be necessary.

 The concrete proposal will sure need some fixing here and there, but my hope is that the general approach of a contract-like, type-driven validation mechanism ends up being useful.
 So, keep the comments flowing -- and safe hacking.
 
 The concrete proposal will sure need some fixing here and there, but my hope is that the general approach of a contract-like, type-driven validation mechanism ends up being useful.
 So, keep the comments flowing -- and safe hacking.