> Just to make sure we're on the same page, this is the function that I > had in mind: > > (define (empty-scopes-everywhere? e)
That works. Thank you. > PS is the name of `strip-context` obsolete? Should it be `strip-scope-sets`? > > Maybe so. In retrospect, I like how "lexical context" is less connected > to an implementation, but the the different layers of terminology don't > line up precisely. Racket is introduced as a "lexically scoped language" [1]. And it already uses "context" for a separate idea within the macro expander [2]. So I agree that "scopes" is the better term (because it embraces both a conceptual and implementational idea). Moreover, at this point, the use of the term "lexical context" to mean "the scopes attached to a certain syntax object" seems to cloud the issue. [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/index.html#%28part._.Lexical_.Scope%29 <http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/index.html#(part._.Lexical_.Scope)> [2] http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html?q=lexical%20context#%28part._expand-context-model%29 <http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html?q=lexical%20context#(part._expand-context-model)> -- 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/3432C358-16FF-475F-B2D0-B144920066FC%40mbtype.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
