> On Oct 19, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:06 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> >> wrote: >> >> That's the best approach we currently have. Of course, we could support a >> new property that was "connect srclocs" or something. > > Do you think it would make sense to have a property that uses > bound-identifier=? rather than free-identifier=? to connect > identifiers? Managing scopes seems a bit more feasible to do > procedurally than managing bindings (since you can use > make-syntax-introducer to explicitly add them), but I’m not sure > if that would be much better than a “connect srclocs” option.
This is weird, because when 'disappeared-use is used with a normal binding it makes sense to use free-identifier=? so that it can look through rename-transformers. But when used with 'disappeared-binding, I would want it to go by the scopes (bound-identifier=?), because there is no binding to look at. For most of the macros I've made using this, I have wanted it to use free-identifier=? if there is a binding, but bound-identifier=? otherwise. Is that the behavior that makes sense for check-syntax arrows? Alex Knauth -- 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.
