I think the right change might be
(module evaluator racket
....
(define (prep!)
(parameterize ([current-namespace namespace])
(dynamic-require (variable-reference->module-path-index
(#%variable-reference))
0)))
....
(define-syntax phase1-phase0-eval
(syntax-parser
[(_ form:expr ...)
#'(begin
(prep!)
(eval-syntax .....))])))
The `prep!` function ensures that the enclosing module is available.
At Wed, 7 May 2014 10:11:49 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> This program: https://gist.github.com/samth/e7b55fcef66da9b8416a works
> when line 33 is uncommented, otherwise it gives the error:
>
> ?: module mismatch;
> attempted to use a module that is not available
> possible cause:
> using (dynamic-require .... #f)
> but need (dynamic-require .... 0)
> module: (submod "weird.rkt" evaluator)
> phase: 0
> in: phase1-phase0-run
> context...:
> weird.rkt: [running body]
>
> From reading the docs on `dynamic-require`, I can see that
> `(dynamic-require m 'f)` doesn't make anything available for higher
> phases. However, the actual `dynamic-require` in the program is just
> for a function -- the need for higher phases is an implementation
> detail that's leaking in because it doesn't behave like a regular
> value wrt `dynamic-require`.
>
> Is there something I can change in the implementation of the internals
> of `f` so that clients of `f` don't need to do the extra
> `(dynamic-require m 0)` in order for `f` to work?
>
> Sam
> _________________________
> Racket Developers list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
