On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > More generally, changes to the scope of a > syntax object are not propagated to property values that happen to be > themselves syntax objects. When you put a syntax object into a > property, then you get whatever that syntax object meant at the time it > was attached as a property.
This is a limitation of syntax properties that I've long had to work around in Typed Racket as well. Are there fundamental reasons why we couldn't have a kind of syntax property that scopes propaged to? Would this be something that would be easier to implement in the new expander? Sam -- 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.
