Is there any reason not to have `make-syntax-introducer` functions preserve `syntax-original?`-ness whenever it's given something `syntax-original?` ?
On Jul 25, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the change to `make-syntax-introducer` is straightforward, and > it still seems like the right idea, but I haven't gotten there, yet. (I > hope to catch up on many things next week.) > > At Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:32:55 -0700, Alexis King wrote: >>> That makes sense in retrospect. Adding an extra scope makes >>> `syntax-original?` produce #f for everything in whole module, and that >>> makes DrRacket ignore the identifiers. >>> >>> I think `make-syntax-introducer` should probably accept an optional >>> argument to specify that the new scope should *not* indicate >>> non-original syntax. >> >> I’m returning to this problem now, so may I ask if you’ve given any more >> thought to this issue? If that’s the right approach, how hard would it be to >> implement that change for `make-syntax-introducer`? Is the usage of >> `'original-for-check-syntax` relevant here (I don’t think there was a clear >> consensus reached)? >> >> Alexis >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/A834CDE2-9AF7-4567-8AA9-720E64C416C1%40knauth.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
