Great, thanks! Is there a reason that this shouldn't be part of the behavior of `namespace-anchor->empty-namespace`?
Sam On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > I think the right change might be > > (module evaluator racket > .... > (define (prep!) > (parameterize ([current-namespace namespace]) > (dynamic-require (variable-reference->module-path-index > (#%variable-reference)) > 0))) > .... > (define-syntax phase1-phase0-eval > (syntax-parser > [(_ form:expr ...) > #'(begin > (prep!) > (eval-syntax .....))]))) > > The `prep!` function ensures that the enclosing module is available. > > At Wed, 7 May 2014 10:11:49 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> This program: https://gist.github.com/samth/e7b55fcef66da9b8416a works >> when line 33 is uncommented, otherwise it gives the error: >> >> ?: module mismatch; >> attempted to use a module that is not available >> possible cause: >> using (dynamic-require .... #f) >> but need (dynamic-require .... 0) >> module: (submod "weird.rkt" evaluator) >> phase: 0 >> in: phase1-phase0-run >> context...: >> weird.rkt: [running body] >> >> From reading the docs on `dynamic-require`, I can see that >> `(dynamic-require m 'f)` doesn't make anything available for higher >> phases. However, the actual `dynamic-require` in the program is just >> for a function -- the need for higher phases is an implementation >> detail that's leaking in because it doesn't behave like a regular >> value wrt `dynamic-require`. >> >> Is there something I can change in the implementation of the internals >> of `f` so that clients of `f` don't need to do the extra >> `(dynamic-require m 0)` in order for `f` to work? >> >> Sam >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev