Yes.
At Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:48:14 -0500, Eric Dobson wrote: > Ok, that makes sense. So would the correct way to create code for > runtime at expansion-time, be to use syntax objects which represent > code that evaluates to procedures instead of the procedures > themselves? > > -Eric > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > At Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:31:23 -0500, Eric Dobson wrote: > >> I am trying to understand how the expansion/compilation process deals > >> with embedding procedures in the syntax of a program, and I have now > >> constructed a program that returns different values when run in > >> drracket, and racket. It also does not compile for me using raco make. > >> I was wondering what people think the correct value it should produce > >> is, or if it is invalid as raco make would suggest. > > > > We've so far stopped short of having the expander reject 3-D syntax > > (i.e., syntax that embeds values that aren't `read'able), but I think > > that's just because we haven't yet fixed all old uses of it. 3-D syntax > > doesn't work in general and you should avoid it. > > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
