At Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:58:29 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> > I'm still somewhat confused, because of the following: Compare:
> >
> > (syntax/loc #'foo [app op ...])
> >
> > vs:
> >
> > (syntax [app op ...])
> >
> > The first does not hav
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I'm still somewhat confused, because of the following: Compare:
>
> (syntax/loc #'foo [app op ...])
>
> vs:
>
> (syntax [app op ...])
>
> The first does not have paren-shape defined, while the second does.
> Is this intentional?
I'm not
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> It comes from the way syntax properties are propagated through macro
> transformers. There is some explanation of this in the docs; search
> for syntax-property and scroll up.
Ok. Yikes, this is more complicated than I expected. Thanks.
It comes from the way syntax properties are propagated through macro
transformers. There is some explanation of this in the docs; search
for syntax-property and scroll up.
Robby
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I'm getting confused by some behavior with regards to paren-shape.
I'm getting confused by some behavior with regards to paren-shape.
Here's what I see:
#lang racket
;;
(define-for-syntax (square-brackets? stx)
(eq? (syntax-property stx 'paren-shape) #\[))
(define-syntax (squa
5 matches
Mail list logo
