Ryan Culpepper writes: > Syntax classes can take arguments. Here’s one example, which adds a > parameter to bar (which is a syntax object representing a variable > bound to the set holding the symbols to check) and passes > #’foo-symbols as the argument.
Excellent, thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to do, but I didn't get very far by studying the documentation. With your example, it looks perfectly straightforward. > Of course, you can also just to the parameterization at "run time": > have the attribute be a function that accepts the set as an > argument. The expansion contains obvious beta redexes, which I’m > sure the Racket compiler will take care of for you. Here’s the > code: That looks like a good solution as well, but I think the former one will yield more readable expansions, which helps with debugging. Thanks again, Konrad. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
