Yes, those uses rely on the resulting syntax not being `syntax-original?`. I've pushed the change to `make-syntax-introducer`. Pass a true argument to `make-syntax-introducer` to create a scope that acts like a use-site scope (no effect on `syntax-original?`) instead of a macro-introduction scope.
At Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:35:15 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote: > 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-81A6709294 > 02%40knauth.org. > 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/20150725204047.D08686501D0%40mail-svr1.cs.utah.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
