That looks great! On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > > P.S. I have re-written chapter 3 of the style guide in particular 3.3 and 3.6 > to add your idea: > > http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Style/style/Units_of_Code.html > > > > On Mar 5, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> >> 1. Clutter removal is built into Racket: >> >> (define-syntax (interface stx) >> (syntax-case stx (subject-to) >> [(interface name clauses ...) >> ;; ==> >> .. (provide (contract-out ..) ..) ..])) >> >> The above macro has become a standard in my recent projects where I place it >> into my ./Lib/contract.rkt library. It is part of an effort to develop a >> header-file style for Racket. And it is an effort to supply a way to >> selectively check contracts. [More soon. It is NOT about turning contracts >> off.] >> >> 2. Contract test issue acknowledged. I have run into this problem too during >> my recent construction of a game program. My work-around >> >> 3. Clutter removal is built into Racket: >> >> #lang racket >> >> #lang racket >> >> (define-syntax-rule >> (tmod def-or-exp ...) >> (module* test racket >> (require rackunit (submod "..")) >> (check-equal? 1 1) >> def-or-exp ...)) >> >> ;; ----------------------------------------- >> >> (provide >> (contract-out >> (f (-> integer? integer?)))) >> >> (define (f x) x) >> >> (tmod (check-equal? (f 2) 2) >> (check-equal? (f 3) 2)) >> >> Consider adding the above module to your ./Lib/contract.rkt library. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: >> >>> Not to flog this, but: >>> >>> Lately I've been trying to be a good little doobie and use `(provide >>> (contract-out))` instead of `define/contract`. Although it's more >>> typing/clutter, grumble grumble, I've been getting used to it. >>> >>> Unfortunately I discovered one gotcha: Using (module+ test <rackunit >>> tests>) means that the test bypasses the contract -- because it's a >>> submodule, and the contract is on the module boundary. So my unit >>> tests weren't exercising and validating the contract. I missed a buggy >>> contract this way. >>> >>> In hindsight this is all perfectly obvious. Just not from the guide. >>> To be fair using submodules for tests is a relatively recent practice >>> in Racket. But I wanted to point out the interaction in case it helps >>> anyone else who is trying to use module contracts and do unit tests >>> following the curent examples. >>> >>> One way to avoid this problem is instead of module+ use module*: >>> >>> (module* test racket ;; To test module-boundary contracts, must use >>> ;; module* and (require (submod "..")). >>> (require (submod "..")) >>> ... check check check ... >>> ) >>> >>> Of course this adds even more "clutter", but it works. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have added a note on this issue to the Style issue; see section 3.6. >>>> Strictly speaking, this prose probably belongs into the Contract guide. -- >>>> Matthias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote: >>>> >>>>> You can have mutually recursive functions with define/contract, but you >>>>> can't with submodules. >>>>> >>>>> Ryan >>>>> >>>>> On 11/30/2012 05:04 PM, Ray Racine wrote: >>>>>> Why not make this explicit by deprecating define/contract and support >>>>>> this use case with a submodule. They lightweight enough and makes >>>>>> boundary demarcations consistent, explicit and simple. Module -> >>>>>> boundary. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 30, 2012 12:05 PM, "Matthias Felleisen" <matth...@ccs.neu.edu >>>>>> <mailto:matth...@ccs.neu.edu>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a complete misunderstanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sometimes I feel like a kid in the room while the adults are talking. >>>>>>> When it comes to contracts, I have to stipulate that most of you are >>>>>>> smarter than me and have thought about this longer than me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies. My opening wasn't meant to say "I am smarter" but I wanted >>>>>> to send a strong message about define/contract. It really introduces a >>>>>> boundary and in some strange sense your (possibly misleading) >>>>>> microbenchmark >>>>>> exposes this constraint too. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________ >>>>>> Racket Users list: >>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________ >>>>>> Racket Users list: >>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________ >>>>> Racket Users list: >>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________ >>>> Racket Users list: >>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
