At Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:31:03 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: > Most importantly, as far as I can tell, cross-phase persistent modules are > currently an internal silent heuristic for turning modules into persistent > ones. I'd really like a way to explicitly declare that I want a module to > be persistent across phases.
I agree. So far, the ways I've considered adding a declaration would mean changing the grammar of fully expanded modules --- and changing that grammar is a pain for several maintainers. Any ideas? > These seem great. I'd like to build a macro that defines cross-phase > persistent structures, so that I can make structs that can be quoted in > syntax reliably. For that, I'd like a little more built-in support. Yes, and I think marshaling and unmarshaling syntax in bytecode needs to be part of the story, and I don't yet know how that works. I agree with your other comments about the allowed content for a cross-persistent module. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
