On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Robby Findler >>> (Also you might want to go check and see how scribble does proc-doc >>> and possibly scribble/lp. I forget the details now, but they are doing >>> similar things.) >> >> Okay, I'll see what I can find. Are these mechanisms documented, or >> do you mean I should look at the code? > > The language primitives are documented; the way they are used is in the code.
I see now. These primitives assume they will have access to the source code of the given module, re-expand it, and extract values from the produced syntax. I've done it that way for Dracula before, but for future versions I would prefer not to have to re-expand anything or assume I have the source code. If possible, I would like to associate metadata with the compiled form of the module much like the module-language syntax property does when produced by the reader. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
