[racket] contracts ->i optional keyword syntax

From: Kevin Forchione (lysseus at gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 27 01:02:24 EDT 2014

On Aug 26, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

> We should probably document this little trick somewhere. -- Matthias

Yes please. It would be useful in the Contract documentation, perhaps as a link pointing to the illustration in the Modules documentation.  So by requiring the enclosing module as a submodule the bindings are redefined (or reinitialized) as specified by the module’s provide? So if the enclosing module didn’t provide certain bindings would the module+ still have access to those bindings from the enclosing module?  

Also, this seems like such a useful construct that it might be nice to have a shorthand. e.g. (module++ …)? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20140826/92d3394b/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.