It seems a bit too clever for me. FWIW. Robby
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
