Re: [racket-users] putting stx in TR structs

2016-06-21 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> 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

[racket-users] Weird syntax-parse/macro-expansion question

2016-06-21 Thread Alex Knauth
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

Re: [racket-users] putting stx in TR structs

2016-06-21 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
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

Re: [racket-users] putting stx in TR structs

2016-06-21 Thread Robby Findler
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