At Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:09:15 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote: > The 'stx-*' functions work on values that aren't syntax objects, so > renaming them to 'syntax-*' would be misleading.
Given the name, I would have thought they only worked on syntax objects. > Roughly, > > stx = syntax | null | (cons syntax stx) I had no idea that was the case. The name certainly does not suggest that. The fact that the metavariable for syntax objects is `stx' also does not help. In which cases would I use an `stx' as opposed to a syntax object? > I sometimes wonder if we should make a racket/pre-contracts > subcollection and just stuff all of racket/contract/base's dependencies > in there, then say everything else is allowed (maybe even expected) to > use contracts. +1 Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
