Thanks for your quick reply. Yes I want the binding identifier. Alas. Nevertheless I am happy with the separation between expansion time and run time. I have decided not to redefine define. Jos
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 at 20:56, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > If you're just interested in the symbolic name "x", as opposed to the > binding identifier, then see `syntax-local-name` or > `syntax-local-infer-name`. > > If you want the binding identifier, though, that's not available. > > Matthew > > At Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:52:23 +0100, Jos Koot wrote: > > Hi > > > > Consider: > > (define-syntax (my-syntax stx) blah ...) > > (define x (my-syntax blah ...) > > > > Is it possible for syntax my-syntax such as to know (at expansion time) > > that is used as the expr of variable x in the expression of the > definition? > > Probably this is possible by redefining syntax define, but can I do it > > without touching syntax define? > > Thanks, Jos > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL6KNi05xNFAYXExOx9kX3%3D5QWoy_CQVoBfWENxBvFPzoonj%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.
