Thanks Philip and Ryan,
I do need to get more familiar with the macro stepper. :) I tried it out
for maybe the first time just now, but I think Philip's screenshot already
helped me understand what's going on.
I recall that when Racket invokes a macro, it puts a scope on the inputs
first (the
Yes, the behavior you're seeing is a consequence of hygiene, and you should
see the same behavior in other Scheme implementations.
When the expander gets to the `let-third` call, there is a `var` identifier
in the macro's template that is used as a binder, and there is a `var`
identifier in the ma
I'll also put in a plug for DrRacket's Macro Stepper, which can show your
scopes in pretty colors! (And precise numbers.) In particular, in the
"Stepper > Foreground colors" menu, you can toggle between "By macro
scopes" and "By all scopes".
[image: Screen Shot 2020-09-30 at 3.47.40 AM.png]
-Phili
Hi Nia,
Here's a variant that passes your test:
#lang racket
(require rackunit
syntax/parse/define)
(define-syntax let-second-and-create-let-third
(syntax-parser
[(_ var let-third body-of-let-second)
#'(let ([var "second"])
(let-syntax ([let-third
Hi all,
I've been experimenting with a custom system of managed local variables,
and I came up with a hygiene test case that was failing. So then I tried
the same test case with plain Racket variables, and it failed that way too.
Here's a minimalistic example.
Basically, this is a curried mac
5 matches
Mail list logo
