Is there any way to create a new syntax object containing a list without recursively converting the list’s elements to syntax objects as well? I have some code where I wanted to use syntax objects as a convenient mechanism to tag arbitrary datums with source location information (and they will be used as syntax objects later), but that code expects datum->syntax followed by syntax-e to return the original datum, which obviously isn’t the case if datum->syntax recursively wraps datums as well.
Is there any way to construct a new syntax object without this recursive behavior? If not, is there any reason something like that does not exist? Nothing intuitively comes to mind as a reason why that would violate someone to violate any guarantees, unless some code for some reason always assumes syntax objects will always be recursively wrapped. To be perfectly clear: I am not intending to use this “shallow syntax object” as the result of a syntax transformer, or even during expansion at all. These are syntax objects I’m manipulating purely at read-time, not expansion-time. Alexis -- 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.
