Yes. Yes, that exactly solves my problem. *sheepish look* Thanks. On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Matthew Butterick <m...@mbtype.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:52 PM, David Storrs <david.sto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This solves the problem of creating top-level bindings at run time (more > or less run time, anyway), but it doesn't handle the lexical closure part. > Is there a way to do that? > > The code generated by a macro automatically adopts the lexical context at > the macro-definition site. So is this not analogous to your Perl code? > > ;;;;;;; > > #lang racket > > (define z 1) > > (define-syntax-rule (makefuns name ...) > (begin > (define (name) > (displayln (format "~a: ~a" 'name z)) > (set! z (+ z 1))) ...)) > > (makefuns foo bar baz) > > (foo) ; prints "foo: 1" > (bar) ; prints "bar: 2" > (baz) ; prints "baz: 3" -- 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.
