So, yeah... that appears to work! I use replace-context to give the resulting require syntax output the context of the original argument. Here's what the change looks like, with my old way commented (unrelated note: path is actually relative):
(define-require-syntax (gamelib stx) (syntax-case stx () ((_ name) ;;(quasisyntax/loc stx (file #,(format "../some/path/~a.dc" (syntax->datum #'name))))) (replace-context stx #`(file #,(format "../some/path/~a.dc" (syntax->datum #'name))))) )) I thought the quasisyntax/loc would be enough, but I guess replace-context's increased thoroughness is necessary. So, is the problem that the identifiers imported by the require usage get the lexical context of the 'define-require-syntax' declaration (where I use #' maybe)? I'm don't follow what exactly goes wrong with the imported identifiers. Thanks, Dan On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> wrote: > #lang racket/base > > ;; This module has a binding and an effect, so we can see that it was > ;; required even when we can't get to it. > (module example racket/base > (define x 1) > (printf "I'm running here\n") > (provide x)) > > ;; If you comment this in, you'll see the "normal" way to require it. > > #; > (let () > (local-require (prefix-in no-macro: (submod "." example))) > (printf "NM x is ~a\n" no-macro:x) > (void)) > > ;; Here is the "obvious" macro of tihs form > (require racket/require-syntax) > (define-require-syntax macro1 > (syntax-rules () > [(_) (submod "." example)])) > > ;; If you comment this in, you'll see that the effect is run, meaning > ;; that it really does require the right thing. Also notice that since > ;; I'm using submodules, the problem ISN'T that `example1` is some how > ;; no the right binding for the module. In your example of an absolute > ;; path, it's even more clear that the path isn't wrong. > > #; > (let () > (local-require (prefix-in macro1: (macro1))) > ;; If you comment this in, you'll see that it is unbound. > #; > (printf "M1 x is ~a\n" macro1:x) > (void)) > > ;; Here is a more complicated version of the above macro. There's > ;; really only one meaningful difference and that's that we explicitly > ;; give the require syntax output the context of the CALL to > ;; macro2. If macro2 had an argument, it may make more sense to use > ;; that lexical context, because that argument probably came from the > ;; ultimate user of this require syntax (in case macro2 is used by > ;; another macro2) > (require (for-syntax racket/base > syntax/strip-context)) > (define-require-syntax macro2 > (λ (stx) > (syntax-case stx () > [(_) > (replace-context stx (syntax (submod "." example)))]))) > > ;; You may want to comment this out while looking at the other ones so > ;; you can be sure that this isn't the reason something is working. > > (let () > (local-require (prefix-in macro2: (macro2))) > (printf "M2 x is ~a\n" macro2:x) > (void)) > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Dan Liebgold <dan.liebg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > If I do a (require (file <some absolute path>)) in a module, the provided > > stuff gets imported properly. > > > > If I do a special require form that uses define-require-syntax to > generate > > an identical (file <...>) the specified module gets evaluated -- but > > (seemingly) nothing gets imported. > > > > Is there something special the define-require-syntax transformer needs > to do > > besides generate a syntax object? > > > > samth mentioned on irc that it is probably a hygiene issue... something > > about generating the right marks on the (file ...) form. > > > > -- > > Dan Liebgold [dan.liebg...@gmail.com] > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > > > > > -- > Jay McCarthy > http://jeapostrophe.github.io > > "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, > for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. > And out of small things proceedeth that which is great." > - D&C 64:33 > -- Dan Liebgold [dan.liebg...@gmail.com]
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
