Is it relying on the resulting syntax not being `syntax-original?` though? And even if it is, would the input syntax not be original most of the time anyway?
On Jul 25, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it would not matter in some cases. The original intent, though, > was to create a scope that's like a macro-introduction scope --- where > the result should not be considered part of the original program, and > the added scope may be the only indication of that. A grep through some > sources shows that `make-syntax-introducer` is used that way in several > places, so a backward-incompatible change seems like a bad idea. > > At Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:23:36 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote: >> Is there any reason not to have `make-syntax-introducer` functions preserve >> `syntax-original?`-ness whenever it's given something `syntax-original?` ? >> >> On Jul 25, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think the change to `make-syntax-introducer` is straightforward, and >>> it still seems like the right idea, but I haven't gotten there, yet. (I >>> hope to catch up on many things next week.) >>> >>> At Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:32:55 -0700, Alexis King wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I think `make-syntax-introducer` should probably accept an optional >>>>> argument to specify that the new scope should *not* indicate >>>>> non-original syntax. >>>> >>>> I’m returning to this problem now, so may I ask if you’ve given any more >>>> thought to this issue? If that’s the right approach, how hard would it be >> to >>>> implement that change for `make-syntax-introducer`? Is the usage of >>>> `'original-for-check-syntax` relevant here (I don’t think there was a >>>> clear >>>> consensus reached)? >>>> >>>> Alexis >>>> > > -- > 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/20150725155005.BA7EF6501CC%40mail-svr1.cs.utah.edu. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/3FBB766D-5E35-4038-8D9C-81A670929402%40knauth.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
