> On Feb 27, 2017, at 4:51 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You don't want local-require?

I don't think so — the `require` forms can be nested anywhere in the program. I 
want them to jump to the top level, and have their usual "global" effect.

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:34 PM, gfb <g...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> If you want that to be equivalent to having `(require math/number-theory)` at 
> the top-level then I'm not sure the precise semantics: should it affect the 
> meaning of already-transformed code from before that `lifted-require` was 
> encountered? 

Currently, I'm doing the job by hand: that is, in the expansion of the 
`#%module-begin` of my #lang, I search the inbound parse tree and move the 
`require` forms to the top level. This works fine. 

So I suppose my question boils down to "is there something in the 
syntax-function zoo that does this more neatly?" 

As it stands, I think the answer is "no" because my manual technique is 
essentially pre-empting the macro expander. 

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.

Reply via email to