(1) I do not understand Neil's problem. Say I have module A and want to protect its exports from abuses by clients, say module B, why do you use define/contract at all? The define/contract form is for splitting modules into module-lets -- in case your module is too large and you can't manage invariants in your head. If you believe that this is true for even small modules, I urge you to use Typed Racket. That's the better solution and real soon now TR will allow you to add contracts on top of types at provides. Right Sam?
(2) I object to provide-with-whatever-contract-you-already-have because I think programmers should explicitly state what they want (if they want something logical). We can already do this (define primes-to-primes (-> (listof prime?) (listof prime?))) (provide/contract [f primes-to-primes] [primes-to-primes contract?]) So in some client module we can write (provide/contract [f primes-to-primes]) again. -- Matthias _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
