[racket] rudimentary Q. about lambda + contracts

Do you want something like this :

#lang racket

(define-syntax-rule 
  (lambda/contract (x ...) c e0 e ...)
  ;; ==> 
  (let ()
    (define/contract (f x ...) c e0 e ...)
    f))

;; -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(define g (lambda/contract (x) (integer? . -> . integer?) (* pi x)))

(void (= (g 0) 0))
(with-handlers ([exn:fail:contract? void])
  (g 1))
   




On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Matthew Butterick <mb at mbtype.com> wrote:

> Having gotten in the habit of writing function contracts, I prefer define/contract to (provide (contract-out ...)) because it keeps the contract near the function.
> 
> Is there an analogous idiom for lambda? I see there is no lambda/contract, and the docs on contracts for case-lambda [1] uses the (provide (contract-out ...)) style.
> 
> [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contracts-general-functions.html#(part._contracts-case-lambda)
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users