> Ultimately, though, that would mean that it would separate the runtime > value and type namespaces, but now types and users’ phase 1 bindings > would share the same namespace, which is still probably confusing and > unintuitive. Maybe that’s okay? Again, I feel like I’d need to > understand better why we idiomatically use phase 0 transformer bindings > for these things — I don’t really get it.
The LCF-style tactic engine that Sam and I have running in the macro expander uses a transformer binding to _invoke_ the tactic engine, but all of the individual tactics live in phase 1 bindings. Though there's no call to syntax-local-eval - they're just used directly. I would think that, similarly, type ascription could be a macro that associates entirely phase-1 type values with run-time expressions. But there's surely aspects of this that I don't see :-) /David -- 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.
