Re: [racket] disappeared-use syntax property

2013-05-29 Thread Robby Findler
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Dobson > wrote: > > Is it 'wrong' to add a disappeared-use property onto a syntax object > > even if the use wasn't actually disappeared? Its not very obvious what > > semantics these syntax proper

Re: [racket] disappeared-use syntax property

2013-05-29 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Dobson wrote: > Is it 'wrong' to add a disappeared-use property onto a syntax object > even if the use wasn't actually disappeared? Its not very obvious what > semantics these syntax properties are supposed to have. I would take an operational view of the sem

[racket] disappeared-use syntax property

2013-05-28 Thread Eric Dobson
Is it 'wrong' to add a disappeared-use property onto a syntax object even if the use wasn't actually disappeared? Its not very obvious what semantics these syntax properties are supposed to have. The situation I'm in is that the code that determines examines the bindings is somewhat separate from