Re: [racket-users] code reflection

Matthias, > It’s quite doable but I think this misses the point I see that I haven't made my point clearly enough (if at all). I certainly don't want to go back to unhygienic macros without error checking. What I do want to go back to is doing simple manipulations of syntax objects using

Re: [racket-users] code reflection

Konrad Hinsen wrote on 10/18/2017 03:53 AM: I think what we’re really seeing here is that backwards compatibility sometimes smothers elegant solutions. I firmly believe that in this case we should simply throw out syntax-rules and syntax-case A very good idea. At least throw it out from the

Re: [racket-users] code reflection

This old post explains my rationale: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2014-March/061899.html (Update: The only reason I didn't also kill off `syntax-case` at the time was that the only documentation for `syntax-parse` was imposing, and people could find gentler tutorials for

Re: [racket-users] code reflection

Please search my post for ‘hygiene’. I didn’t mention the word. Off — Matthias > On Oct 18, 2017, at 3:53 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > > Matthias, > >> It’s quite doable but I think this misses the point > > I see that I haven't made my point clearly enough (if

Re: [racket-users] code reflection

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:53 AM, Konrad Hinsen > wrote: > > I needed to remove the first > element and add it in front of the others. On a plain list, I could do > this half asleep. But with the list wrapped in a syntax object, even > after considerable thought I am

Re: [racket-users] Multiple namespaces in Racket

> On Oct 17, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Alexis King wrote: > >It’s obvious that should be in the value namespace and > should be in the type namespace. When expanding code, this > makes things easy, but Scribble doesn’t expand its code examples, > it merely

Re: [racket-users] Multiple namespaces in Racket

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Matthias Felleisen > wrote: > > Wouldn’t something like this work for Hackett? I don’t think so. Perhaps it would be better illustrated with an example. First, consider the Hackett definition of, say, the `Maybe` type: (data (Maybe a)

Re: [racket-users] Multiple namespaces in Racket

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Alexis King wrote: > > >@(examples > (: (Tuple 42 "hello") (#,t:Tuple Integer String))) > > That’s because the `examples` form doesn’t allow escaping, which makes > sense, since there would be no way to know what `#,t:Tuple`