Interesting. I had never heard of 3d syntax before. But I'm not sure what advantage 3d syntax would get me here. If I have to write my own custom version of "define", couldn't it just as easily detect a dot in a regular syntax object?
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 6:29:22 PM UTC-6, Milo Turner wrote: > > Another option, which probably has a lot of terrible consequences, is to > transform "a.b" into "3-d syntax" (a struct embedded in syntax) that can > now be interpreted differently by forms that are interested. For instance a > custom "define" could grab the 3d-syntax in the name and use it to make a > decision on what to actually define (or raise an error). In an expression > context, #%datum could see this syntax and transform it into some sort of > binding looking or other syntax (e.g. (#%dot a b)), which could then be > resolved in the typical way. > > This approach probably wouldn't work very well because a lot of syntax > transformers don't expect to see 3-d syntax. In fact sometimes 3-d syntax > is rejected before being made into a syntax object. If you can get this to > work I will be pretty impressed. > -- 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.
