My initial reaction is that that's a bad idea because it means that you're not cooperating separate compilation when you do things like that. That is, if module.rkt's compilation were affected by the parameter `a`, then if there were a .zo file (because someone did 'raco setup' or 'raco make' or the like on module.rkt), then you'd get one version of the code, and if there weren't, then you'd get a different version of the code.
Perhaps there is another way to achieve the effect you want in a way that is more friendly to creating .zo files? Robby On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Dan Liebgold <dan_liebg...@naughtydog.com> wrote: > > Hi - > > I've asked this question privately of Matthew Flatt, but I'll throw it out to > the group in case anyone else wants a crack at it. > > If I do this: > > (parameterize ([a 3]) > (dynamic-require "module.rkt" 'func) > (func)) > > > ...where the current module and "module.rkt" both require in parameter "a", > and func uses the value "a" during the syntax phase -- (a) will not be 3... > it will be the value bound during parameter creation. > > Is there a way to parameterize a in this case? > > Thanks, > Dan > > -- > 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. -- 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.
