So I have a delayed-reaction question. Why separate `require` and `local-require`?
It looks like `local-require` works at module level or top level; it _seems_ equivalent to `require` there. Why not just have `require` _be_ `local-require`? Or is there some cost or penalty to `local-require` that makes it worthwhile to have available and use the limited `require`? On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Greg Hendershott <greghendersh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Of course, local-require works fine because local-require can go at >> any scope and position. > > I didn't know about `local-require`. > > I tried and it works perfectly. Thanks! ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
