On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Alexander D. Knauth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:20:32 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0700, Alexis King wrote: >>>>> One more thing: introducing a new scope with make-syntax-introducer seems >>>>> to >>>>> break DrRacket’s Check Syntax arrows for the whole module. >>>> >>>> That makes sense in retrospect. Adding an extra scope makes >>>> `syntax-original?` produce #f for everything in whole module, and that >>>> makes DrRacket ignore the identifiers. >>> >>> Not sure if it is relevant, but if you put the property >>> 'original-for-check-syntax on an identifier, check syntax will treat >>> it as if it was original. >> >> In this case, I think that would mark too many identifiers as original, >> such as identifiers introduced by macros that are defined in the same >> module. > > Wouldn't it only do that if the identifiers were original to begin with? > I mean, if they were introduced by macros, then they wouldn't be original to > begin with, and so a function produced by (make-syntax-introducer) wouldn't > make it original unless it already was? >
I'm not sure if you're asking about Check Syntax or not, but what it does is ignore identifiers, unless they are either syntax-original? or they have that property. Robby -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAL3TdOM-CGgMvoH8DuTaM80rr9ebHAQS0aP1_MgmzBSzPqPZoA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
