> On Jun 21, 2016, at 5:19 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Yes, that's the problem. Also 3d syntax is a potential problem. Perhaps the
> new macro expander that Matthew is working on will enable chaperones for
> syntax.
Okay, so I woke up this morning and tried a little harder, and I did m
Hello, I have a weird syntax-parse/macro-expansion question.
I have a macro that should raise a good error message. In the debugging output
there are two possible failures, both with the exact same error message and
both pointing to what looks like the same syntax object. However, these
failure
Yes, that's the problem. Also 3d syntax is a potential problem. Perhaps the
new macro expander that Matthew is working on will enable chaperones for
syntax.
Sam
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 8:11 AM Robby Findler
wrote:
> Is the issue that TR's boundary contract can't tell that there isn't a
> function
Is the issue that TR's boundary contract can't tell that there isn't a
function lurking somewhere in one of the properties of that syntax
object when it passes across the boundary? (And that function might be
a function from TR that was compiled with the assumption that it will
get as inputs only t
4 matches
Mail list logo