On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote: >> >> Roughly, >> >> stx = syntax | null | (cons syntax stx) > > I had no idea that was the case. The name certainly does not suggest > that. The fact that the metavariable for syntax objects is `stx' also > does not help. > > In which cases would I use an `stx' as opposed to a syntax object?
Sounds like this should be documented and possibly even contracted. > >> I sometimes wonder if we should make a racket/pre-contracts >> subcollection and just stuff all of racket/contract/base's dependencies >> in there, then say everything else is allowed (maybe even expected) to >> use contracts. > > +1 +2 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
