On Aug 26, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> 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++ …)?
-Kevin
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
