Hello,
in most cases you should probably simply use a regular definition like
this:
(define ONE 1)
If that definition is not exported from the module you are writing it
will probably be inlined anyway.
This doesn't appear to be true. You probably refer to this snippet of the
docs here:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/stxtrans.html?q=define#(tech._liberal._expansion)
which reads that in a liberal expansion context (which is implied in
modules) define may translate to define-syntax. However:
(require macro-debugger/stepper-text)
(expand/step-text
#'(module alias racket
(provide plusone)
(define ONE 1)
(define (plusone x) (+ x ONE))
(plusone 2)
))
==>
...
(module
alias
racket
(#%module-begin:2
(#%provide:3 (expand:3 (provide-trampoline:3 plusone)))
(define-values:7 (ONE) (quote 1))
(define-values:13 (plusone) (lambda:12 (x) (#%app:17 + x ONE)))
(#%app:16
call-with-values:16
(lambda:16 () (#%app:15 plusone (quote 2)))
print-values:16)))
which generates a binding (albeit a define-values which according to the
docs is also possible).
If you really want a syntactic replacement, syntax-id-rules could be
what you are looking for:
(define-syntax ONE (syntax-id-rules () [ONE 1]))
This yields the expected result:
(require macro-debugger/stepper-text)
(expand/step-text
#'(let ()
(define-syntax alias
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ symbol literal)
(define-syntax symbol (syntax-id-rules () [symbol
literal]))
]))
(alias ONE 1)
(define (plusone x) (+ x ONE))
(plusone 2)
))
==>
...
(let-values:1
()
(let-values
(((plusone) (lambda:27 (x) (#%app:30 + x '1))))
(#%app:32 plusone (quote 2))))
So what made you think that defines within modules are inlined? Is it a doc
bug, or were you looking at something else than liberal expansion that needs
additional work? What does it take for define to translate into
define-syntax within a liberal expansion context?
Thanks!
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
