Matthias, > Yes, on rare occasions, Racket programmers need to use the FFI > to link in C libraries, C developers need to include ASM, and > so on. But when we can, we should really stick to high-level > linguistic constructs when possible and available, especially > when they provide a safer way of doing things.
At that level of abstraction in the discussion, I certainly agree. However, macros are different because I consider syntax-parse a DSL, not a general purpose language like Racket, C, or ASM. I checked my code to see what the unpleasant macros in there are doing. It's not the standard syntax transformation stuff, which syntax-parse does very well. I need to transform syntax in place but ALSO extract information from macros and collect them for re-using it elsewhere. It's not very different from what #lang scribble/lp2 does when it puts code blocks both in the module and in the documentation. In my experience, syntax-parse is not very good for shuffling stuff around like this. It's very probably not what it was designed for either. 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.
