Aha, yes, that seems to work. I should have thought of that, but I actually didn’t know you can just copy all properties over with datum->syntax, haha. I guess I should have read the docs for that more carefully.
This does seem a little bit like cheating because now the macro-generated racket/base identifier is considered to be `syntax-original?`, which I guess may have been the problem in the first place. Does this mean that `syntax-original?` is less meaningful than I initially thought—just because it’s a “private” property doesn’t mean macros can’t generate new syntax objects that are considered to be “original”? Anyway, thanks for your quick response! All seems to be well now. > On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> > wrote: > > Maybe you need to copy over the properties too? This seems to work: > > #lang racket/base > (require (for-syntax racket/base)) > (define-syntax (import stx) > (syntax-case stx () > [(_ (a b)) > #`(require #,(datum->syntax stx > (string->symbol (format "~a/~a" > (syntax-e #'a) (syntax-e #'b))) > #'b > stx))])) > > (import (racket contract)) > list/c > > Robby -- 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
