On 03/15/2017 12:33 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote:
Here's what works, not using the inner ellipses:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/34338
But I'd prefer to use the ellipses..
Here are three ways of doing that:
Method 1: use with-syntax to plant the inner ellipsis
(define-syntax (test stx)
(s
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:36:19 AM UTC-7, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> You need to escape the ... with another ..., like this:
>
That's what I forgot. Is there any other case where things are escaped in this
manner? It's a little surprising...
Thanks,
Dan
--
You received this messag
The inner ellipses need to be "escaped". I like using the dot notation
in nested macros but I know others do not like that style.
(define-syntax (test stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ n e ...)
#'(define-syntax (n stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ e0 (... ...))
#'
You need to escape the ... with another ..., like this:
#lang racket/base
(require
(for-syntax
racket/base))
(define-syntax (test stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ n e ...)
#'(define-syntax (n stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ e0 (... ...))
#'(n (e ...) e0
Here's what works, not using the inner ellipses:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/34338
But I'd prefer to use the ellipses..
--
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
Oops, try this link instead (that one had simple mistakes):
http://pasterack.org/pastes/68032
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:22:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Liebgold wrote:
> I feel like I'm forgetting something basic, but how can I have a syntax
> transformer expand to a define-syntax, both using ellip
6 matches
Mail list logo
