At Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:13:44 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I had not realized that I could sensibly wrap a module in a > `begin-for-syntax`. What is the semantic difference between that and > a "plain" submodule (other than my example working)?
For `(module* _name #f ....)', `begin-for-syntax' shifts the phase level of the enclosing module's bindings relative to the submodule. An enclosing `begin-for-syntax' has no effect on a `module' submodule or `module*' with a module path instead of `#f', though. (This is documented with `module*'.) _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
