> I think there is a bug in the documentation (or maybe in Racket) because
when I try `(syntax-local-eval #'(begin e ...) #f)`
Thanks for the report, I submitted a PR with a fix
(https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/3964).
Referring back to your original message,
> (Of course, if I had more
Thank you! `splice` is indeed the essential primitive here, so it's nice to
see it extracted and named properly.
The difference between eval-syntax and syntax-local-eval is good to know
also. I think there is a bug in the documentation (or maybe in Racket)
because when I try
The essential primitive here seems to me to be:
(define-syntax (splice stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ e ...)
(eval-syntax #'(begin e ...))]))
With with-quasisyntax being:
(define-syntax-rule
(with-quasisyntax ([a b] ...) template)
(splice (with-syntax ([a b] ...) (quasisyntax
The name `with-quasisyntax` is not very good, because it is not simply a
quasi version of `with-syntax`. The most interesting part is that it calls
`eval-syntax` up front. The result feels like a "universal macro" -- it can
be used to implement both foo->assoc and assoc->foo which look like they
Ah, I'm now seeing that with-quasi implicitly #`s the body; I believe with
syntax-parse, #:with, and #' + template vars + #` when needed you might be
ok.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> A shortcut to answering my question would be to tell me that
`with-quasisyntax` in the following paste already exists:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/48885
Without taking a detailed look, is there anything about with-quasisyntax
that with-syntax
6 matches
Mail list logo
