> On Apr 5, 2019, at 3:23 AM, zeRusski wrote:
>
> Now about that error in the docs:
I was skeptical, but I think you're right:
"More generally, we can define binding based on subsets: A reference’s binding
is found as one whose set of scopes is a subset of the reference’s own scopes
(in addi
A simple model to keep in your head:
> Each macro keeps a count, i, of how many times it has been applied.
> Each time a the output of a macro contains a definition of name not
> present in the input it appends _i to the name.
>
Ha, I get it. That's a good little heuristic. I'm keeping it
Yes!
fre. 5. apr. 2019 kl. 13.52 skrev Hendrik Boom :
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:35:37PM +0200, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> > Den tor. 4. apr. 2019 kl. 21.58 skrev zeRusski >:
> >
> > (define-simple-macro (define-foo (name:id formal:id ...) body:expr ...)
> > >> (begin
> > >> (define (foo
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:35:37PM +0200, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> Den tor. 4. apr. 2019 kl. 21.58 skrev zeRusski :
>
> (define-simple-macro (define-foo (name:id formal:id ...) body:expr ...)
> >> (begin
> >> (define (foo-impl formal ...) body ...)
> >> (define-syntax (name stx)
> >>
Den tor. 4. apr. 2019 kl. 21.58 skrev zeRusski :
(define-simple-macro (define-foo (name:id formal:id ...) body:expr ...)
>> (begin
>> (define (foo-impl formal ...) body ...)
>> (define-syntax (name stx)
>> (syntax-parse stx
>> [(_ . args) #'(foo-impl . args)]
>> [_:
> If I understand correctly, the fourth paragraph here is relevant?
>
>
> https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html#%28part._transformer-model%29
>
>
>
I dreaded someone pointing me there. I read it a year ago, took a lot of
head scratching and careful reading before I convi
If I understand correctly, the fourth paragraph here is relevant?
https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html#%28part._transformer-model%29
So, `foo-impl` is a binding introduced by the macro and gets that
macro invocation's fresh macro-introduction scope.
Whereas for example `na
I know in principle but on occasion I fail to understand the implications.
Let me think aloud. I don't have to be perfectly accurate, maybe just about
right. Hygiene here means that every symbol there e.g. arguments my macro
receives carry their "environment" with them. There exists some oracle
Racket's macros are hygienic. They'll gensym for you.
--
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.
For more options
While reading *rackunit* source I stumbled on a pattern that I can't figure
out. Why the heck does it work? Condensed to its essence it amounts to
introducing indirection with a macro-generated define:
#lang racket
> (require (for-syntax syntax/parse)
> syntax/parse/define)
> (defi
10 matches
Mail list logo
