Re: [racket] define-syntax-class

2011-04-27 Thread Nadeem Abdul Hamid
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote: > Modules currently can't define syntax for syntax.  However, you can > use define-syntax-set from mzlib/etc to define multiple macros at once > that share local bindings, such as syntax classes.  Since they're > lexical bindings rather than m

Re: [racket] define-syntax-class

2011-04-27 Thread Carl Eastlund
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt > wrote: >>> If I move the syntax class >>> definition into the bodies of define-syntax, then it works, but that >>> defeats the purpose of being able to define a reusable syntax c

Re: [racket] define-syntax-class

2011-04-27 Thread Nadeem Abdul Hamid
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> If I move the syntax class >> definition into the bodies of define-syntax, then it works, but that >> defeats the purpose of being able to define a reusable syntax class... > > You'll need to move the syntax class definition into a se

Re: [racket] define-syntax-class

2011-04-27 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
2011/4/27 Nadeem Abdul Hamid : > What am I missing in the code below (reproduced from the "Fortifying > Macros" paper)? When run, this gives me an error: "syntax-parse: not > defined as syntax class in: binding". If I move the syntax class > definition into the bodies of define-syntax, then it work

[racket] define-syntax-class

2011-04-27 Thread Nadeem Abdul Hamid
What am I missing in the code below (reproduced from the "Fortifying Macros" paper)? When run, this gives me an error: "syntax-parse: not defined as syntax class in: binding". If I move the syntax class definition into the bodies of define-syntax, then it works, but that defeats the purpose of bein