I think you have to drop to the lower-level and work directly with the 'contract' form. The implementation of contract-out might provide some inspiration. But the contract system actually exports the identifier as syntax in order to be able to pick up the name of the party that is importing the function.
Sorry I don't have a better answer for you. Robby On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Jon Zeppieri <zeppi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm trying to provide a struct, the struct type of which uses > prop:procedure and prop:match-expander, and I'd like the procedure to > have a contract. > > If I simply (provide <identifier>) then both the procedure binding and > transformer binding are exported, but if I (provide/contract > [<identifier> <contract>]), then only the procedure is exported, and I > can't separately export the transformer binding with the same name. > > Presumably, I could attach a contract to the procedure prior to > exporting it -- I could, for example, define it using define/contract > -- but then the wrong module would be blamed. > > What's the best way to handle this case? > > -Jon > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
