*cough* my test cases at the moment amount to pressing the keys and seeing that the appropriate actions are being taken. I suppose I will need to write official tests.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > > It is an unusual way to break syntax but I can't think of a serious > drawback off the top of my head. (I am sure Ryan and Matthew can think of > one.) Does it pass your test cases? > > > On Jan 5, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Sean Kanaley wrote: > > > Ha! The below solution is a macro-making macro that re-syntaxifies > "params ..." to "belong to" the inner macro: > > > > (define-syntax-rule (make-commands name params ...) > > (define-syntax (name inner-stx) > > (syntax-case inner-stx () > > [(_ (c f) (... ...)) > > (with-syntax ([(ps (... ...)) (datum->syntax inner-stx > (syntax->datum #'(params ...)))]) > > #'(list (cons (symbol->string 'c) > > (λ (ps (... ...)) f)) > > (... ...)))]))) > > > > I'm not sure if this is the canonical solution, but nevertheless I think > it's pretty awesome that this is possible and seems to work. > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
