Alexander D. Knauth writes: > > At least it's one that works. It feels like cheating to use dynamic > > scoping to get around a problem with lexical scoping, but knowing when > > to cheat is a fundamental competence when dealing with any bureaucracy ;-) > > Um, the reason a syntax parameter is better is that it *does* > follow the lexical scoping rules, where the unhygienic version does > weird things you wouldn't expect. Using datum->syntax is cheating a > lot more, and syntax parameters deal with problems like this in a > much better way.
I agree that datum->syntax is cheating a lot more, no question. Still, I just used it, and I don't feel bad about it because it makes my code a lot more readable. I had gotten to the point of having a macro introduce generated identifiers as syntax parameters for use by another macro generated by the first macro as well. Actually, I felt exactly like when I have to fight a type system: I know my solution is OK, but the compiler cannot prove it and therefore rejects it. In those cases I feel entitled to cheat as much as necessary. > P.S. Have you read Fear of Macros? If you haven't, I highly > recommend it because it's awesome. It is. I had read it a year ago, and now re-read it. I'll probably have to read it again in the future, but it *is* awesome :-) Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
