Re: [racket-users] Re: More compile/eval Confusion

Yes, this worked for me, thank you. It also uncovered a bug in my tests where test namespaces where leaking out of the tests, thus affecting future tests. Thank you again. ~Leif Andersen On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:58:53

Re: [racket-users] Re: More compile/eval Confusion

At Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:58:53 -0700, Leif Andersen wrote: > That's what I thought initially too, but it didn't seem to make a > difference when I used > `expand-syntax-top-level-with-compile-time-evals`, although then I > realized that perhaps a better function to use would be >

[racket-users] Re: More compile/eval Confusion

I should probably also mention that if I comment out the first eval leaving only `(compile (eval prog))`, I get: x: undefined; cannot reference undefined identifier Which leads me to think that the other error is from trying to require the same module twice in the same namespace. But I'm

Re: [racket-users] Re: More compile/eval Confusion

I agree with Robby's explanation on just the `compile` line. When you uncomment both lines, it's the same error as as > (module m racket/base (define x 5)) > (require 'm) > (module m racket/base (define x 5)) define-values: assignment disallowed; cannot re-define a constant constant: x

Re: [racket-users] Re: More compile/eval Confusion

> Well, considering my past performance you definitely don't want to to trust me on these questions, but I'll give it a try anyway. :) Ha, well I appreciate the attempt anyway. > My guess is that when you comment in only this line from the last two: > (eval (compile prog)) > then the "x" is

Re: [racket-users] Re: More compile/eval Confusion

Well, considering my past performance you definitely don't want to to trust me on these questions, but I'll give it a try anyway. :) My guess is that when you comment in only this line from the last two: (eval (compile prog)) then the "x" is compiled into a reference to a top-level