The result for the local-binding case looks like a bug to me, and it looks like the kind of bug that will take a while to fix. (I think it's a problem with the current representation of syntax objects and the way that module-level lexical information interacts with local-binding information.)
Meanwhile, for the reasons discussed in the other thread, I agree that "reader extensions not be used this way" is the operative answer, at least for now. At Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:10:48 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote: > It seems like “hygienic reader extensions” still work when a module-level > definition conflicts with it, but it seems like if it’s a local binding the > local binding overrides the one in the reader extension. > > For example: > #lang rackjure > ;; this works: > (define lambda "module-level-whatever") > #λ(void %1) ; #<procedure> > ;; this doesn't work > (let ([lambda "local-whatever"] > [%1 void] > [define-syntax void] > [% void]) > #λ(void %1)) ; application: not a procedure; > ; ; expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments > ; ; given: "local-whatever" > ; ; arguments…: > > Why does it work at the module-level and not within a let? > > Is this a bug, or should reader extensions not be used this way, or what? > > What’s going on here? > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
