Ah, now I know what I was doing wrong. I was using identifier-binding for references, but not for definitions. Now that I'm using it in both places, things seem to work.
Thanks! Sam On Jul 17, 2014 3:08 AM, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > Does `identifier-binding` not give you the symbol that you need? > > At Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:32:46 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Ok, I thought I had figured this out, but I was wrong. > > > > Here's what I want to be able to do: > > > > - take an identifier in a fully-expanded source file > > - translate that identifier to some symbol in a predictable way > > - so that other references to that same (free-identifier=?) > > identifier get translated to the same symbol > > > > It's pretty easy to do this in a single module -- just keep a > > free-id-table of all the identifiers mapping to gensyms. But I want to > > be able to do this across modules, and across invocations of this > > program. IOW, when I run my program on one source file, I'd like to > > get a symbol for a provided definition that's the same symbol I get > > when I run my program on a different source file containing a > > reference to that definition. > > > > Clearly this is possible, since Racket manages, but is there a way > > that I can do it? > > > > Sam > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > wrote: > > > Yes, it can be ".2", etc. The numbers are generated as needed to create > > > distinct names --- deterministically for a given module compilation, > > > assuming that all macros used by expansion are deterministic. > > > > > > At Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:36:50 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > >> Does that mean that I can/should just drop the .1 to get the defined > name? > > >> Can it also be .2 etc? > > >> > > >> Sam > > >> On Jul 16, 2014 4:34 AM, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > >> > > >> > That `posn1.1` is a unreadable symbol that stands for the symbol > > >> > `posn1` plus some marks that distinguish it. > > >> > > > >> > In other words, `posn1.1` bridges (in an ugly way) the symbol-based > > >> > world of module environments and the identifier-based world of > syntax. > > >> > In the future, I hope to shift module environments to be > > >> > identifier-based to avoid these unreadable symbols. > > >> > > > >> > At Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:10:26 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > >> > > If you take this program and fully-expand it in the macro stepper: > > >> > > > > >> > > #lang racket > > >> > > (struct posn (x y)) > > >> > > (define p1 (posn 1 2)) > > >> > > > > >> > > You see that the residual program has an application of the > `posn1` > > >> > > function, which is the hidden constructor. And indeed, the > > >> > > fully-expanded program has a definition of `posn1`. However, if > you > > >> > > click on the use of `posn1`, the macro stepper will tell you that > it's > > >> > > defined in this module as `posn1.1`, and provided as `posn1.1` as > > >> > > well. If you write program to grovel through the fully-expanded > > >> > > syntax, you get these same results as the `src-id` and > > >> > > `nominal-src-id` from `identifier-binding`. > > >> > > > > >> > > Why is this? And is there a way to get from `posn1.1` to `posn1` > > >> > reliably? > > >> > > > > >> > > Sam > > >> > >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
