Isn’t that a matter of putting more syntax/loc? I tried:
(-define-syntax let-syntaxes
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ ([(id ...) expr] ...) body1 body ...)
(with-syntax ([((tmp ...) ...)
(map
generate-temporaries
(syntax->list (syntax
Here are two syntax errors that behave differently in DrRacket:
#lang racket
(define-syntax (m-late stx)
#'(let () (define x 0)))
(define-syntax (m-early stx)
#'(let-syntax () (define x 0)))
; (m-late)
; (m-early)
DrRacket *correctly* highlights the source location of the errors in
both
The name `with-quasisyntax` is not very good, because it is not simply a
quasi version of `with-syntax`. The most interesting part is that it calls
`eval-syntax` up front. The result feels like a "universal macro" -- it can
be used to implement both foo->assoc and assoc->foo which look like they
Ah, I'm now seeing that with-quasi implicitly #`s the body; I believe with
syntax-parse, #:with, and #' + template vars + #` when needed you might be
ok.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> A shortcut to answering my question would be to tell me that
`with-quasisyntax` in the following paste already exists:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/48885
Without taking a detailed look, is there anything about with-quasisyntax
that with-syntax
5 matches
Mail list logo
