** Call for Participation **
10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering
(SLE 2017)
23-24 October 2017, Vancouver, Canada
(Collocated with SPLASH 2017)
http://conf.researchr.org/track/sle-
The program:
```
#lang racket
(define-syntax (exp stx)
(define a (local-expand (cadr (syntax->list stx)) 'expression '()))
(define one (cadr (syntax->list a)))
(displayln (list one (syntax-original? one)))
a)
(exp 1)
```
prints `(# #f)`.
However if I open the macro stepper in and step
To understand this, note that (syntax-original? stx) is only #t when
*both* of the following things are true:
1. stx has the special, opaque syntax property that syntax-original?
knows how to look for.
2. stx has no macro-introduction scopes.
The first point is satisfied by read-syntax,
Is it a good idea that we can synthesize “original looking code”?
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>
> To understand this, note that (syntax-original? stx) is only #t when
> *both* of the following things are true:
>
> 1. stx has the special, opaque syntax property that syn
In my opinion, it is too hard, not too easy to synthesize such syntax
objects. After all, I can make ports and I can call read-syntax (which
is what I end up doing sometimes, annoyingly). The point is that
syntax-original? implies that DrRacket treats the syntax objects
differently. Most of the tim
5 matches
Mail list logo
