> ... > So far, I have made two attempts to work around these issues: (1) by creating > a metamodel-like data structure using Racket structs, and transforming syntax > objects into struct instances; or (2) using syntax objects only and attaching > context data to each of them as a syntax property. > Both have strengths and weaknesses, and I am still feeling that I am not > using Racket with the right mindset.
I think your (2) sounds like a lighter-weight solution. However, it definitely does seem as though much of the difficulty here is related to the differences between a more imperative and a more functional style. I think your idea of a simplified example—especially one illustrating the situations in which context information is required—would be an excellent idea! John -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/f560d4b5-9707-4be8-8644-d41c8f249b1b%40mtasv.net.
