Is it 'wrong' to add a disappeared-use property onto a syntax object even if the use wasn't actually disappeared? Its not very obvious what semantics these syntax properties are supposed to have.
The situation I'm in is that the code that determines examines the bindings is somewhat separate from the code that finally makes the decision on whether or not to remove the use. So if it was ok to unconditionally add any identifier whose binding matched the first step, that would be useful. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
