On Dec 26, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > Yes.
Okay, I should probably ask: would it be possible for the stepper to do a principled job of inserting references to stepper procedures in such a way that the user's module could not refer to them? (Currently, it uses 3D syntax for this.) John > > 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
