On 07/10/2012 05:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:51:57 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x 1]) #,stx))
(define-syntax (m stx)
(with-syntax ([zz (f
Hi,
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu skribis:
It's natural --- but not correct --- to think that #` is responsible
for hygiene, in which case `(f #'x)' should keep the given `x' separate
from the `let'-bound `x' in the result.
[...]
If you change the example to
#lang racket
samth made a pointer to
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-72/srfi-72.html
It does not look like guile racket etc. have implemented this yet.
Am I wrong?
This is precisely what I'm after!
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu
At Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:51:57 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x
On 07/10/2012 10:51 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x 1]) #,stx))
An hour and a half ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
It's natural --- but not correct --- to think that #` is responsible
for hygiene, in which case `(f #'x)' should keep the given `x'
separate from the `let'-bound `x' in the result.
Instead, hygiene is the responsibility of macro invocation, and
