> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Kevin Forchione <lyss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That seems to be the nature of macros, and I’m not sure what the solution to > that paradox is, apart from perhaps building a symbol/function hash table as > part of a define. Presumably Racke does something like that for eva & > namespaces, but I’m surprised there isn’t a symbol->procedure function.
I take a question as I find it, even if its necessity is not clear to me ;) It seems a teeny bit possible that you're moving against the grain of how identifiers & bindings usually work, and thus certain aspects seem more complicated than they need to. -- 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.
