Re: [racket-users] The mythical top-level

2015-11-30 Thread brendan
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:07:32 PM UTC-5, Alex Knauth wrote: > Maybe this would be more accurate then: > > #lang racket > (define-syntax context > (lambda (stx) > (println (syntax-local-context)) > #'(void))) > (context) Great! Thank you. -- You received this message because y

Re: [racket-users] The mythical top-level

2015-11-30 Thread Alex Knauth
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:20 PM, brendan wrote: > > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-5, Asumu Takikawa wrote: >> When you use a REPL, like if you launch racket at the command-line, you are >> using the top-level: >> >> Welcome to Racket v6.3.0.6. >> -> (begin-for-syntax (display

Re: [racket-users] The mythical top-level

2015-11-30 Thread brendan
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-5, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > When you use a REPL, like if you launch racket at the command-line, you are > using the top-level: > > Welcome to Racket v6.3.0.6. > -> (begin-for-syntax (displayln (syntax-local-context))) > top-level > > (or if you

Re: [racket-users] The mythical top-level

2015-11-30 Thread Asumu Takikawa
On 2015-11-30 06:55:44 -0800, brendan wrote: > But I can’t figure out how such a thing can exist, > because Racket always insists that any definitions I write must be inside a > module, either implicitly via #lang, or explicitly. It seems like the only > possible top-level form is a module form. Ca

[racket-users] The mythical top-level

2015-11-30 Thread brendan
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but this has been bothering me... the Reference refers in various places to top-level variables and bindings that apparently excludes module bodies, as in section 1.2.1: "A top-level binding is a binding from a definition at the top-level; a module binding