This seems like it would be a good way to handle all the constructs that have sub-forms-as-standalone-macros (require, provide, big-bang, match?, etc). Maybe there are other good ways, too, but the current setup is a nuisance AND highly non-modular.
Shriram On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is not now but we could make a module that only exported them so you > could provide all-from-out it and thus centralize the list of subforms. > That's the cleanest idea I have. (You don't want to hear my really bad ideas) > > Jay > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 24, 2010, at 8:46 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> wrote: > >> Is there a way to say "give me all the require sub-forms" instead of >> having to enumerate them explicitly: >> >> (provide require only-in except-in prefix-in rename-in combine-in >> only-meta-in for-syntax for-template for-label for-meta) >> >> thereby missing some in future extensions of the base language? >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
