Yes, you can refer to non-exported definitions: #lang racket
(provide (contract-out (f (-> integer? integer?)))) (define (f x) x) (define (g x) x) (module+ test (require rackunit (submod "..")) (check-equal? (f 1) 1) (check-equal? (g 1) 1)) On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Kevin Forchione <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
