<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Aug 26, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen <<a href="mailto:matthias@ccs.neu.edu">matthias@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">We should probably document this little trick somewhere. -- Matthias</span></blockquote></div><br><div>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? </div><div><br></div><div>Also, this seems like such a useful construct that it might be nice to have a shorthand. e.g. (module++ …)? </div><div><br></div><div>-Kevin</div></body></html>