At Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:48:46 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > Does this mean that `define-for-syntax' becomes as deprecated as > `require-for-syntax' etc, right?
At the moment, `define-for-syntax' seems like a more useful shorthand than `require-for-syntax', but maybe not if `for-syntax' works as `begin-for-syntax'. I changed the use of `define-for-syntax' in the Guide to `begin-for-syntax', though. > Also, does `provide' work fine in a `begin-for-syntax'? Yes. > Assuming that it is, it could have been nice to have it called just > `for-syntax', since > > (for-syntax (require foo)) > > becomes equivalent to > > (require (for-syntax foo)) Overloading `for-syntax' in that way reminds me of the `begin' pun (expression sequencing versus definition splicing). But maybe this one is ok, because definitions and `require'/`provide' forms are completely distinct positions, unlike expressions and definition sequences. We'd have to keep `begin-for-syntax' for compatibility. Also, for layering reasons, I think it's best to keep `begin-for-syntax' as the core form. I'm ambivalent overall, so I'll wait for others to chime in. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
