On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Tim Brown <t...@cityc.co.uk> wrote: > These examples seem to work fine without syntax-local-introduce on the > identifiers. What is s-l-i’s role in this code?
The syntax-local-introduce compensates for the extra macro-introduction scope that the expander puts on the identifiers (which it doesn't put onto properties in the result of the macro transformer). It makes sure that the identifier compare as the same identifier by the time check syntax gets its hands on them. .... at least I think that was the point of it. I see the same thing you do, however, that removing it still works. I suppose that's due to the new expander and I wonder if there might be another way in which one could supply identifiers to this macro such that the syntax-local-introduce version works but the other doesn't. I woudl guess there is, but I'm really not sure of that at all. Robby -- 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.
