> Ultimately, though, that would mean that it would separate the runtime > value and type namespaces, but now types and users’ phase 1 bindings > would share the same namespace, which is still probably confusing and > unintuitive. Maybe that’s okay? Again, I feel like I’d need to > understand better why we idiomatically use phase 0 transformer bindings > for these things — I don’t really get it.
The LCF-style tactic engine that Sam and I have running in the macro expander uses a transformer binding to _invoke_ the tactic engine, but all of the individual tactics live in phase 1 bindings. Though there's no call to syntax-local-eval - they're just used directly. I would think that, similarly, type ascription could be a macro that associates entirely phase-1 type values with run-time expressions. But there's surely aspects of this that I don't see :-) /David -- 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.
