Two days ago, Neil Toronto wrote: > (Probably. Why are we whispering?) +1 to not using a macro that depends on paren shapes. I'm not saying that the brokenness is fine -- just that on one hand you're likely to run into a bunch of problems with code that doesn't propagate the shapes, and on the other hand there is so far no part of the core language that depends on the paren shapes.
(The first is an inherent problem since you need other people's code to deal correctly with a feature that you're using, and I think that honu (especially the way it shapes up) is a much better solution here.) > Anyway, it occurred to me that I need to provide a more robust way > to generate code for literal arrays anyway. Keywords are more easily > preserved by macros than syntax properties: Why not use vector syntax #(...) instead of [...]? > I think that'll let me use Eli's sneaky eval:alts to display (array > [0 1 2 3]) but evaluate (array (array-row 0 1 2 3)). (That's not mine...) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev