On 06/15/2012 03:25 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
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?
See the docs for 'syntax-e' and the definition of "syntax pair".
Ryan
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
