Certainly, `contract-in` couldn't fix the ordering issue, but it could simplify using contracts with require, instead of needing the separate `require/contract` form.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > It can't be. If you think about it, contract-out can safely lift to the end > of the module, but contract-in can't, so the ordering problem remains. > > > On Feb 9, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> >> wrote: >>> BUT, I wonder whether there is a dual to contract-out, i.e., contract-in >> >> That's what `require/contract` (implemented as part of Typed Racket >> here: >> https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/master/collects/typed-racket/utils/require-contract.rkt) >> does. >> >> It would be nice to provide this as part of a `require` macro, the way >> that `contract-out` works, but I don't think that the `require` >> extension API can support this. >> >> Sam > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
