Short version: __Thank you__
It does appear that I do not need the #%module-begin rewrite in this test
case. However, the point of the language is to create a dictionary of
procedures and provide a "run" procedure which accepts a symbol and returns
the procedure in the dictionary. My concern was w
On Aug 7, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
> The definition of x in `my-module-begin` doesn't work because it comes from
> the macro's scope, not from the module's scope.
> See
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html#%28part._macro-introduced-bindings%29
>
> If y
On Aug 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
> I have a minimal example that reproduces the behavior and I can track it
> down to the fact that I do not export "define" and the file which uses the
> new #lang does not define anything, except through a #%module-begin rewrite.
You shouldn't
I
have a minimal example that reproduces the behavior and I can track it
down to the fact that I do not export "define" and the file which uses the
new #lang does not define anything, except through a #%module-begin
rewrite. If the file written in the new #lang has access to define and
defines an
That sounds weird. You shouldn't need to do anything special with
#%top-interaction or anything, so I'm not sure what's going on.
How are you defining it? Can you show us some of the source code?
On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
> I have a #lang I'm working on and everything se
I have a #lang I'm working on and everything seems to be going very well. One
thing I don't understand, though, is that when a file written in this language
is opened in DrRacket and Run, I still have to (require "file.rkt") in the REPL
before I am able to use anything provided by the file.
I a
6 matches
Mail list logo
