On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:12 PM, <keccak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ahh... datum->syntax, I thought I had seen something like this before. It is > treating "a", or a's form, as the scope for the new ids essentially, but I > can pick standard names. This just presupposes I only care to use my "a" > macro once in any given scope. Does this really make it an unhygenic solution?
If you're planning to use the identifiers outside the macro, then yes. The idea is that at an identifier's use site, you should only see bindings that are lexically apparent. So, for example, if you had: (define x 20) (a) x You should expect `x` on the third line to evaluate to 20, because that's the lexically apparent definition of x. But non-hygienic macros can break that rule. - J -- 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.
