I don’t need to win that badly.

Contract semantics as types? Sure, let’s see how far it goes, how much it helps, and when it becomes a problem. If it saves us some contract tests, I’m all for it.

I used to frequently transfer money between two countries, the process of which required talking to a human at the time. During one such conversation, the Customer Service Representative asked a new question: “What’s the purpose of the transfer?” This immediately took me aback, partly because I didn’t expect the question and partly because, much like your father, it’s none of their fucking business.

After stumbling a bit, I learned the magic phrase “personal use”. After that, every transfer I initiated was for “personal use” until such time as the bank automated the process and I no longer needed to speak to a human to transfer the money across an international border.

I have no earthly idea why “personal use” is acceptable, since it conveys no more useful information than writing nothing, but then it’s not my policy and I don’t care.