[racket] style guide, was Re: Contracts and submodules

That looks great!

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Matthias Felleisen
<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> P.S. I have re-written chapter 3 of the style guide in particular 3.3 and 3.6 to add your idea:
>
>  http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Style/style/Units_of_Code.html
>
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. Clutter removal is built into Racket:
>>
>> (define-syntax (interface stx)
>>  (syntax-case stx (subject-to)
>>    [(interface name clauses ...)
>>     ;; ==>
>>     .. (provide (contract-out ..) ..) ..]))
>>
>> The above macro has become a standard in my recent projects where I place it into my ./Lib/contract.rkt library. It is part of an effort to develop a header-file style for Racket. And it is an effort to supply a way to selectively check contracts. [More soon. It is NOT about turning contracts off.]
>>
>> 2. Contract test issue acknowledged. I have run into this problem too during my recent construction of a game program. My work-around
>>
>> 3. Clutter removal is built into Racket:
>>
>> #lang racket
>>
>> #lang racket
>>
>> (define-syntax-rule
>>  (tmod def-or-exp ...)
>>  (module* test racket
>>    (require rackunit (submod ".."))
>>    (check-equal? 1 1)
>>    def-or-exp ...))
>>
>> ;; -----------------------------------------
>>
>> (provide
>> (contract-out
>>  (f (-> integer? integer?))))
>>
>> (define (f x) x)
>>
>> (tmod (check-equal? (f 2) 2)
>>      (check-equal? (f 3) 2))
>>
>> Consider adding the above module to your ./Lib/contract.rkt library.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>>
>>> Not to flog this, but:
>>>
>>> Lately I've been trying to be a good little doobie and use `(provide
>>> (contract-out))` instead of `define/contract`. Although it's more
>>> typing/clutter, grumble grumble, I've been getting used to it.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I discovered one gotcha: Using (module+ test <rackunit
>>> tests>) means that the test bypasses the contract -- because it's a
>>> submodule, and the contract is on the module boundary. So my unit
>>> tests weren't exercising and validating the contract. I missed a buggy
>>> contract this way.
>>>
>>> In hindsight this is all perfectly obvious. Just not from the guide.
>>> To be fair using submodules for tests is a relatively recent practice
>>> in Racket. But I wanted to point out the interaction in case it helps
>>> anyone else who is trying to use module contracts and do unit tests
>>> following the curent examples.
>>>
>>> One way to avoid this problem is instead of module+ use module*:
>>>
>>> (module* test racket ;; To test module-boundary contracts, must use
>>>                      ;; module* and (require (submod "..")).
>>>   (require (submod ".."))
>>>   ... check check check ...
>>>   )
>>>
>>> Of course this adds even more "clutter", but it works.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have added a note on this issue to the Style issue; see section 3.6. Strictly speaking, this prose probably belongs into the Contract guide. -- Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can have mutually recursive functions with define/contract, but you can't with submodules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/30/2012 05:04 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
>>>>>> Why not make this explicit by deprecating define/contract and support
>>>>>> this use case with a submodule.  They lightweight enough and makes
>>>>>> boundary demarcations consistent, explicit and simple.  Module -> boundary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2012 12:05 PM, "Matthias Felleisen" <matthias at ccs.neu.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:matthias at ccs.neu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a complete misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes I feel like a kid in the room while the adults are talking.
>>>>>>> When it comes to contracts, I have to stipulate that most of you are
>>>>>>> smarter than me and have thought about this longer than me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Apologies. My opening wasn't meant to say "I am smarter" but I wanted
>>>>>>  to send a strong message about define/contract. It really introduces a
>>>>>>  boundary and in some strange sense your (possibly misleading)
>>>>>>  microbenchmark
>>>>>>  exposes this constraint too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ____________________
>>>>>>     Racket Users list:
>>>>>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________
>>>>>> Racket Users list:
>>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________
>>>>> Racket Users list:
>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________
>>>> Racket Users list:
>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>
>>
>> ____________________
>>  Racket Users list:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>