This reminds me of a similar thread on Slack yesterday.
When a macro `define`s something, it's usually better for everyone if
the identifier is supplied to the macro. It's nicer for you as the
macro writer because you don't need to think so hard about scope and
hygiene. And it's nicer for the user
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:31 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase
wrote:
>
> Isn’t this because of hygienity in general?
*headdesk*
Of course. Thanks, I should have recognized that.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from t
For your case:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse
racket/syntax))
(define-syntax (foo stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(foo name val (~optional (~seq #:make-double? make-double?:boolean)))
(with-syntax* ([NAME (datum->syntax stx 'doubleup)]
Isn’t this because of hygienity in general? For example:
#lang racket
(define-syntax (foo stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_) #'(define doubleup 1)]))
(foo)
doubleup ; unbound id
doesn’t define doubleup.
While the below code does:
#lang racket
(define-syntax (foo stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
I would like to write a macro that accepts an optional keyword
argument. If the argument is missing, or if it is present and has a
true value, then some code will be generated. Otherwise, nothing is
done. This was my best attempt:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define-syntax
5 matches
Mail list logo
