I see now that I misunderstood what syntax-parse can really do. It is
absurdly more powerful than I realized at first. There was no need for a
separate "collect" macro as it should just be a syntax class within the
main macro. I've got it all working now in relatively simple cases that I
should be
Hi Stephen,
At the moment, "collect" is syntax, itself defined through syntax-parse. So
you suggest making "collect" a literal and changing the underlying macro
name?
It's part of a #lang experiment I'm writing which manages a series of
actions from a controller. The file, when required, provides
You might want to specify "collect" in #:datum-literals if it is not a
defined name.
Can you describe some usage examples? That may lead to better insight
for the implementation.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
> Suppose I have a macro (experiment ...) which is intended, am
Suppose I have a macro (experiment ...) which is intended, among other things,
to be composed of uses of a macro (collect ...).
For instance:
(experiment
(collect ...)
(collect ...) ...)
To my understanding, "collect" is not a literal. Can I turn the collect macro
itself into a syntax clas
4 matches
Mail list logo
