> On May 7, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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?
I'm not sure if this helps you, but if you have complete control over what happens to it, you could wrap it in a struct first: (struct my-struct (lst)) (define (wrap lst #:ctxt ctxt) (datum->syntax ctxt (my-struct lst))) (define (unwrap stx) (my-struct-lst (syntax-e stx))) (define the-list (list 'a 'b 'c)) (define the-syntax (wrap the-list #:ctxt #f)) (check-eq? (unwrap the-syntax) the-list) Does that work with what you want to do? Alex Knauth -- 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.
