> > How is your proposed `current-output-type` parameter different from an > expression like this? (in pseudocode): > > (if source-file-has-poly-ext > (current-poly-target) > (get-source-file-ext)) >
No difference at all, you precisely captured the intent of my proposal. My point is that, to actually write get-source-file-ext in *pollen.rkt* it’s necessary to have some form of feedback from the source file. Either by a Racket parameter (for example, current-poly-target) or by the function arguments (for example, by accepting the metas as the first parameter). I was hoping you’d agree it’d be nice to have a magical feedback channel provided by Pollen 😀 > I don't see how this would be better than just passing `metas` to > functions in "pollen.rkt" when needed. In general, I'm wary of adding magic > communication to the supported interface when standard Racket idiom will > suffice. (Though I would not talk anyone out of structuring a project that > way.) > > The advantage of a macro in a case like this is that it's a little bit > hacky, but the hackiness is contained. > Sure, it’s a trade-off between convenience and simplicity. You are preferring simplicity, which is perfectly reasonable. Thanks a lot for the conversation! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pollen" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
