An hour ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:38:58 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > > At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:15:09 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > > > I'd love to see an implicit `#%begin', which could have the > > > > above apply in more places automatically. (It was one of the > > > > feature requests I asked for in the summer meeting.) > > > > > > Recall that no one solved the technical problem with where to > > > pull the lexical context for the implicit `#%begin' or `#%body': > > > > > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/2010-July/003624.html > > > > I remember being confused with how that problem would look like, > > but I don't think that I've seen an example where this would be > > problematic. (I think that we talked about it, but I can't > > remember any concrete details...) > > Can you say more about how the `squawk' example in the referenced > post doesn't illustrate the problem?
It doesn't specify any clear problem -- either that or I'm missing something obvious... AFAICT, the problem that is described there is similar to: (define-syntax-rule (squawk body ...) (begin (printf "squick ~a!" "squawk") (let () body ...))) having the implicit `#%app' come from this macro's module rather than the use site, for example, if it's defined in a module that has implicitlty curried applications then the `printf' call becomes curried. So if this is the problem, it doesn't seem problematic, given that `#%app' does the same now, and that it's easy to get used to that. But it looks to me like there is something that I'm missing, since that `#%app' feature doesn't require going to identifier macros... -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev