What if you define define as define/provide and define definep as define? That doesn't answer the question about black magic though.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Brian Adkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been porting my friend's Elixir code to Racket with great success. > When I asked what the equivalent of (provide my-func) was in Elixir, they > mentioned that you can define a private function with defp instead of def. > For example: > > defmodule MyModule do > def foo(a) do > ... > end > > defp bar(b) do > ... > end > end > > vs. > > #lang racket > (provide foo) > > (define (foo a) ... ) > (define (bar a) ... ) > > > I prefer the Racket way, but it made me curious about the possibility of a > definep macro that would work similarly as a thought experiment. > > Is it possible to do the following? > > #lang racket > > (define (foo a) ... ) > (definep (bar a) ... ) > > I'm not asking for someone to help with definep - I'm just curious about > the possibility of a macro adding/modifying something outside of its scope. > In other words, could a definep macro create or modify the proper (provide) > construct to export foo and not bar ? > > Thanks, > Brian > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
