I just had an epiphany, or rather a very painful revelation, that if your macro does not report errors in terms of user code, say, when inputs are wrong, you ought to be ostracized by the community if not banished from any social interactions altogether. You don't deserve the good life. Solitary confinement, damn it, until you've repented your sins, for you have sinned!
Every macro has a good path - one that lets us figure what it should expand into. I doubt I'm alone in merrily banging out said expansions without so much as a single thought about all the bad paths the macro can take. It's gotten painfully obvious lately, that if I don't take care to capture such erroneous states and expansions, my macro may as well be broken, as in completely wrong, even if it does the right thing for correct inputs. Sadly, I don't think I have any systematic approach to being a good citizen here, nor is my mental model for syntax objects I produce has an entry for good locations and context. First, I noticed that I started to use syntax/loc in place of #' everywhere I produce syntax objects. Then more pain led me to discover a combination of ~describe pattern with #:context syntax-parse option. And, I tell ya they are MAGICAL! Both were learnt through hardship and pain, so I wonder if there is a compendium of patterns that I should be cognizant of to avoid at least some of that pain as I push Racket harder? Could people maybe share relevant examples, or point out Racket machinery that may not be immediately relevant but one should have at least passing knowledge of to recognize when it may come in handy? Is this too broad of a request? -- 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.
