All good questions. I certainly explicitly work to make all *functions* "pass through".
I can't guarantee that for syntactic forms. I'm currently re-exporting the whole Racket language, which might be leading to the strange interaction you're seeing. Dotted infix syntax: An infix-by-syntax-hack won't work well with P4P: the language has too much syntax to "slide in" something like this. I'd like to make so that syntactic forms can "pass through" with minimal work, probably using the do:-style to achieve it for a quick-and-dirty solution. Shriram On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Guillaume Marceau <gmarc...@gmail.com> wrote: > How does P4P interact with existing macros? How much work does it take > to make a macro such as require/contract available to P4P programs? > > > Is there an equivalent of the dotted-infix syntax in P4P? What would > the following line look like in P4P? : > > (provide/contract [process (path-string? path-string? (listof > symbol?) . -> . any)]) > > > Right now, if I run > > #lang s-exp "p4p.rkt" > require(srfi/1) > > I get the error > > require: not at module level or top level in: require > > Is this a bug? > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev