Stephen Chang writes: > You need (require (for-syntax syntax/parse)) because you are using it inside > a > define-syntax.
Aaaaahhh... that does it, thanks! Laurent writes: > How much work would be required to prevent people from falling into it ever > again? > Maybe saying so in the docs at the right place wouldn't hurt, but people may > still miss > it. That's my case. The line (require (for-syntax syntax/parse)) is just above the example, but on a quick scan I just see "require", so I type the more familiar (require syntax/parse). > Maybe making the error message more specific like "Did you forget to (require > (for-syntax syntax/parse)) ?" ? Or is it too specific? It would already help a lot if the error message said something about syntax-parse being undefined. But it complains about the pattern, which is kind of strange. It looks like syntax-parse is already there but incomplete. Konrad. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
