[plt-scheme] integer-in Contract

I am testing my collections on the new V371 release candidate and
encountered what appears to be a change in the integer-in contract.  I have
often used (integer-in 1 +inf.0) as a contract for a positive integer.  With
V371 this now gives an error "integer-in: expected two exact integers as
arguments, got 1 and +inf.0)".  I can understand the change, but I also like
the convenience of using infinities as arguments here.  Would it possible to
change integer-in so that it allows -inf.0 as the first argument and +inf.0
as the second?  Or add a positive-integer/c contract that is similar to
natural-number/c?
I assume the best alternative now is to use (and/c natural-number/c (</c
0)), but I really think (integer-in 1 +inf.0) matches the abstraction
better.
Is there a standard way that others use to denote a contract for a positive
integer?
By the way, the documentation still says integer-in takes two numbers as
arguments and should probably be updated to say two integers.  There might
be a similar problem with the documentation for real-in that should limit it
to real numbers.  I guess those are kind of nits.
Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20070814/f2400361/attachment.html>