On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <[email protected]> wrote: > That fixed the problem, thanks. > > I was disappointed by some of the resulting error messages, though. > I'm bringing these up here because I don't know whether these error > messages are an artifact of the strategy Jay suggested. > > To simplify, suppose I have > > (define-syntax (defvar: stx) > (syntax-parse stx #:literals(:) > [(_ i:id : C:expr b:expr) > ...])) > > Here are some errors: > > (defvar: y : 4) > -> defvar:: bad syntax in: (defvar: y : 4) > > Could have indicated a missing expression? > > (defvar: y number? 4) > -> defvar:: expected the identifier `:' in: number? > > I have two nits with this: > > - : is meant to be a literal, not an identifier, and
I don't really understand this nit. The : is a literal identifier. It's like reading "expected the number 5" and saying, no, you should expect the constant 5. Well, yes. It's a constant number, or a numeric constant. It's both. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
