The #%plain-app identifier is just a renamed version of #%app from
'#%kernel, so it’s actually named #%app when initially defined. The
racket/base version of #%app exists to handle keyword arguments, so
racket/base exports the underlying version of #%app as #%plain-app. Of
course, fully expanded
Consider the following program:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define (Type x) x)
(begin-for-syntax
(define x (local-expand #`(Type 1) 'expression null))
(displayln x)
(displayln
(syntax-parse x
#:literals (Type #%app #%plain-app)
I recently ran into a problem that took me hours to diagnose.
It turns out that a `#:with` clause in a syntax-parse was not matching, but I
would never have guessed
that from the error message I got.
Here is a simplified example:
(define-syntax-rule (my-fancy-macro syn ...) (begin syn ...))
> Unfortunately, there are probably many such buggy macros, since I don't think
> most people have a clear idea when to copy properties when using
> datum->syntax.
This is key, and unfortunately I’m becoming more and more convinced
that there’s no one good answer in the presence of the
On 9/28/16 12:04 PM, William J. Bowman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:58:23PM -0400, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
It appears that the constructor macro (implemented by self-ctor-transformer
in racket/private/define-struct.rkt) transfers the syntax properties from
the macro use to its expansion (see
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0100, Matthew Eric Bassett wrote:
> I do not believe this is an oversight. The function expt has type
> signature (-> Number Number Number). Mathematically, yes, a^b is a real
> when a and b are reals.
not if a is negative and b is one-half.
Or are complex
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:58:23PM -0400, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> It appears that the constructor macro (implemented by self-ctor-transformer
> in racket/private/define-struct.rkt) transfers the syntax properties from
> the macro use to its expansion (see the datum->syntax in the first
>
Maybe that was to remind you to start working on it? ;)
More seriously, I don't remember where that could have been from, and I
don't think there's anyone actively working on it at this point.
Vincent
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:10:51 -0500,
Racket Users wrote:
>
> Anyone have any idea why on
8 matches
Mail list logo
