Thanks for your help. I did consider the only-meta-in approach, but then I’d be excluding the syntax-rules export as well, which I was trying to avoid if possible.
> On Jun 29, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > You're right that there's not a form that's like `except-out` but > constrained both by name and phase. There's also not an export variant > of `only-meta-in`, which would get your half-way there. You could > implement a new provide expander to do that. > > Otherwise, in addition to the strategy that you describe, another > possibility is > > (require (only-meta-in 0 r5rs) > ...) > > Then you won't have any conflicts from `r5rs` and `racket/base` at > phase 1, since there won't be any phase-1 imports from `r5rs`. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
