Matthias, > Yes, on rare occasions, Racket programmers need to use the FFI > to link in C libraries, C developers need to include ASM, and > so on. But when we can, we should really stick to high-level > linguistic constructs when possible and available, especially > when they provide a safer way of doing things.
At that level of abstraction in the discussion, I certainly agree. However, macros are different because I consider syntax-parse a DSL, not a general purpose language like Racket, C, or ASM. I checked my code to see what the unpleasant macros in there are doing. It's not the standard syntax transformation stuff, which syntax-parse does very well. I need to transform syntax in place but ALSO extract information from macros and collect them for re-using it elsewhere. It's not very different from what #lang scribble/lp2 does when it puts code blocks both in the module and in the documentation. In my experience, syntax-parse is not very good for shuffling stuff around like this. It's very probably not what it was designed for either. Konrad. -- 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.
