On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > I would take an operational view of the semantics: use the > 'disappeared-use property if you want DrRacket to draw an arrow to the > location of that syntax object. > > And DrRacket already has to do a bunch of work to cope with strange results (including duplicate identifiers) so it shouldn't mind if they both end up being there. Robby
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
