Hi, Tobias. > (define-syntax (lam stx) > (syntax-case stx () > [(_ args body ...) > (with-syntax ([conv-args (for/list ([a (syntax->list #'args)]) > (define a-datum (syntax->datum a)) > ;; do whatever you want with a-datum > (datum->syntax a a-datum))]) > #`(lambda conv-args > body ...))]))
Thank you! That makes sense. I was able to use this successfully in the one spot where I couldn't avoid a trip through syntax->datum and datum->syntax. In the remaining places I was able to get things done with patterns -- and a small army of ellipses :) -- instead of using append* and more datum<->syntax. (In case anyone is interested, a less-distilled example is here: https://gist.github.com/4122971/3e40c23c9390b9c5e3e91cd8293c25238e0cfaa3 ) > Other macros only have to cooperate in the 'normal' way, i.e. they have to > make sure > that the arguments they pass in have the right context. Perfect. Many thanks! P.S. I already appreciated that patterns/templates are usually more convenient. However I seem to be learning that I should try to stick with patterns/templates even when Racket normal code would be more convenient -- because otherwise I'm likely to botch up the lexical context. I'm curious what folks thinks: Is that a reasonable take-away, good advice to give myself? ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
