On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu>
wrote:
> In a syntax-case, I can obtain the term being processed: eg,
>
> (define-syntax (foo stx)
> (syntax-case stx ()
> [... (with-syntax ([term stx]) ... #'term)]))
>
> In syntax-id-rules, the RHS is like a syntax-*rules*, so I don't know
> of a way of obtaining access to the source. This would be
> particularly useful since my id macros are expanding into regular term
> macros, but I'd like the user to see errors in terms of the id text
> (which I'm storing in a structure, hence the #'term above).
>
> Sorry if I'm missing something obvious; hopefully an archival answer
> to this will help anyway.
Is there a reason not to just use `syntax-case' (or even better,
`syntax-parse')? To convert it into a macro that works with `set!',
you'll need to do something like this:
(define-syntax foo
(make-set!-transformer
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-parse stx ...))))
--
sam th
sa...@ccs.neu.edu
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
