Thanks, I'll look into that. It's implemented in the C code, but it looks
like it's effectively doing a combination of generate-temporary and
syntax-local-lift-module-end-declaration. I don't think it gives me the
option of creating two fresh identifiers with the same printed name in the
same mod
If you replace all of your internal definition manipulation with
(syntax-local-lift-expression #'#f), it passes your check.rkt. You
don't have control over the names, but I'm guessing you could look
into the implementation and see what it is doing to generate such
names.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:
Even worse, I can't even reliably make identifiers that are unique with
respect to bound-identifier=?, because marks don't survive marshaling any
better than other "unique" values like internal definition contexts or
uninterned symbols. I checked this by changing fresh to run
generate-temporary an
I want a non-probabilistic guarantee of uniqueness, partly because I'd
rather not rely on something nondeterministic, and partly because in an
ideal solution, I'd like to have control over the printed names of these
identifiers.
Carl Eastlund
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>
What does unique mean in this context? Does probabilistically unique
work? If so could you form an identifier with the symbolic form
"unique-id-"+UUID?
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> I'm having trouble creating identifiers that are unique with respect to
> free-identifier
5 matches
Mail list logo
