Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

On May 3, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > So far, I don't know how to specify `syntax-local-introduce` other than > by its interaction with the expansion algorithm. The uses I can think > of offhand are places that want to imitate the expansion algorithm in > some

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

At Tue, 3 May 2016 12:48:47 -0700, Matthew Butterick wrote: > > Strangely, your Example #4 works the same as example #3, except in > > DrRacket, where it errors. > > It's always nice to share puzzlement ;) The problem is in `expand` and definition contexts. The problem doesn't affect `compile`,

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

On May 3, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> The common thread in the Knauth/Butterick critique is that >> `syntax-local-introduce` promises a result — syntax, locally introduced — >> but in fact delivers a certain action — adding a scope — that will

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Butterick wrote: >> On May 2, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt >> wrote: >>> >>> My initial statement was less precise than my second email. >>> `(syntax-local-introduce stx)` adds a single scope, using the >>>

[racket-users] Re: Racket v6.5

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:57:28 -0400, Ryan Culpepper wrote: >Racket version 6.5 is now available from > > http://racket-lang.org/ > Thanks to whoever created the generic Linux install. AFAICT it runs fine on CentOS 6.7 (command line). Saved me the minor inconvenience of