Yes, it's obviously easier to implement this new feature with the new expander.
But right now, as Sam well knows, I'm open to patches only as long as they make things no slower and no bigger. :) The current implementation is reliably within a factor of 2 of the old one, but we're still working to close the gap. At Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:09:12 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > I can’t believe I fell for this again. Ryan has explained this more than once > to me . . . and yet. In this spirit, I support Sam’s question :-) > > -- > 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. -- 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.
