On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Alexander D. Knauth <alexan...@knauth.org> wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2015, at 2:29 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>) > > Is this identifier the constructor function, or an instance of this struct? > If it’s the constructor function, then couldn’t you use (provide > (contract-out [struct id ([field contract] …)])) for that? > If it’s an instance, then are you doing something different to define it as a > transformer binding? >
It's an instance of a struct. Here's the background: I have a struct type, created with `struct`, which has its own constructor and match expander. However, I don't want to use that constructor or match expander as part of the public interface. (The struct contains some fields that should be treated as private.) Now, the only way I know to provide a single identifier that can act as both a struct constructor and a match expander is to use a struct. So, in this case, I need to use a *different* struct type, an instance of which can be used, on one hand, as a procedure to construct an instance of the original struct type, and on the other, as a match expander (also for the original struct type). -- 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.
