Re: [racket-users] syntax-original? different in expanded code than during expansion

2017-09-20 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-users] syntax-original? different in expanded code than during expansion

2017-09-20 Thread Matthias Felleisen
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