Yes, it can be ".2", etc. The numbers are generated as needed to create distinct names --- deterministically for a given module compilation, assuming that all macros used by expansion are deterministic.
At Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:36:50 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > Does that mean that I can/should just drop the .1 to get the defined name? > Can it also be .2 etc? > > Sam > On Jul 16, 2014 4:34 AM, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > That `posn1.1` is a unreadable symbol that stands for the symbol > > `posn1` plus some marks that distinguish it. > > > > In other words, `posn1.1` bridges (in an ugly way) the symbol-based > > world of module environments and the identifier-based world of syntax. > > In the future, I hope to shift module environments to be > > identifier-based to avoid these unreadable symbols. > > > > At Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:10:26 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > > If you take this program and fully-expand it in the macro stepper: > > > > > > #lang racket > > > (struct posn (x y)) > > > (define p1 (posn 1 2)) > > > > > > You see that the residual program has an application of the `posn1` > > > function, which is the hidden constructor. And indeed, the > > > fully-expanded program has a definition of `posn1`. However, if you > > > click on the use of `posn1`, the macro stepper will tell you that it's > > > defined in this module as `posn1.1`, and provided as `posn1.1` as > > > well. If you write program to grovel through the fully-expanded > > > syntax, you get these same results as the `src-id` and > > > `nominal-src-id` from `identifier-binding`. > > > > > > Why is this? And is there a way to get from `posn1.1` to `posn1` > > reliably? > > > > > > Sam > > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
