Do you want something like this :
#lang racket
(define-syntax-rule
(lambda/contract (x ...) c e0 e ...)
;; ==>
(let ()
(define/contract (f x ...) c e0 e ...)
f))
;; -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(define g (lambda/contract (x) (integer? . -> . integer?) (* pi x)))
(void (= (g 0) 0))
(with-handlers ([exn:fail:contract? void])
(g 1))
On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Matthew Butterick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Having gotten in the habit of writing function contracts, I prefer
> define/contract to (provide (contract-out ...)) because it keeps the contract
> near the function.
>
> Is there an analogous idiom for lambda? I see there is no lambda/contract,
> and the docs on contracts for case-lambda [1] uses the (provide (contract-out
> ...)) style.
>
> [1]
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contracts-general-functions.html#(part._contracts-case-lambda)
> ____________________
> Racket Users list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
