Yes, I was thinking of naming the register explicitly too. On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Daniel MacDougall wrote:
> I suppose that would work. Sam suggested on #racket that I include the name > of the argument in the macro definition: > > (define-syntax-rule (foo bar form ...) > ((lambda (bar) form ...) "ARG")) > > Then you could say: > > (foo bar > ; Do stuff with bar here... > ) > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Why not just store the arguments to lambda in some 'register' and ask for > them? > > > > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Daniel MacDougall wrote: > > > In this example it should return "ARG". > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > What should (foo bar) return? > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Daniel MacDougall wrote: > > > > > Is there any way to define a macro that expands out to a lambda, and then > > > access the arguments passed to that lambda from outside the macro in the > > > calling context? > > > Here's an example of what I mean: > > > > > > #lang racket > > > > > > (define-syntax-rule (foo form ...) > > > ((lambda (bar) form ...) "ARG")) > > > > > > (foo "Hello") ; => returns "Hello" > > > > > > (foo bar) ; => expand: unbound identifier in module in: bar > > > > > > > > > I'd like access to the "bar" argument on the last line. Is this possible > > > with Racket macros? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Daniel > > > _________________________________________________ > > > For list-related administrative tasks: > > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > > > > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
