Alexander D. Knauth writes: > > At least it's one that works. It feels like cheating to use dynamic > > scoping to get around a problem with lexical scoping, but knowing when > > to cheat is a fundamental competence when dealing with any bureaucracy ;-) > > Um, the reason a syntax parameter is better is that it *does* > follow the lexical scoping rules, where the unhygienic version does > weird things you wouldn't expect. Using datum->syntax is cheating a > lot more, and syntax parameters deal with problems like this in a > much better way.
I agree that datum->syntax is cheating a lot more, no question. Still, I just used it, and I don't feel bad about it because it makes my code a lot more readable. I had gotten to the point of having a macro introduce generated identifiers as syntax parameters for use by another macro generated by the first macro as well. Actually, I felt exactly like when I have to fight a type system: I know my solution is OK, but the compiler cannot prove it and therefore rejects it. In those cases I feel entitled to cheat as much as necessary. > P.S. Have you read Fear of Macros? If you haven't, I highly > recommend it because it's awesome. It is. I had read it a year ago, and now re-read it. I'll probably have to read it again in the future, but it *is* awesome :-) Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
