Ok, that makes sense. So would the correct way to create code for runtime at expansion-time, be to use syntax objects which represent code that evaluates to procedures instead of the procedures themselves?
-Eric On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > At Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:31:23 -0500, Eric Dobson wrote: >> I am trying to understand how the expansion/compilation process deals >> with embedding procedures in the syntax of a program, and I have now >> constructed a program that returns different values when run in >> drracket, and racket. It also does not compile for me using raco make. >> I was wondering what people think the correct value it should produce >> is, or if it is invalid as raco make would suggest. > > We've so far stopped short of having the expander reject 3-D syntax > (i.e., syntax that embeds values that aren't `read'able), but I think > that's just because we haven't yet fixed all old uses of it. 3-D syntax > doesn't work in general and you should avoid it. > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
