I was going to suggest `dynamic-require-for-syntax`, but it seems to do exactly
the same thing as `dynamic-require`, i.e. give the value of a phase-0 provided
identifier. Is this normal?
The `eval` trick is a good idea, I would say. From the couple of times I have
used dynamic-require, I have felt that it was pretty limited concerning
shifting phases.
The thing I found to be the most difficult is to extract the phase 1 value
bound to a macro via define-syntax. Following your `eval` idea, I managed to do
that using 3D syntax. I suppose it's safe, as the 3D syntax object is created
on the fly during `eval` and promptly discarded, therefore it should never need
to be marshalled into a compiled file.
(eval #'(begin
(module m racket/base
(require (for-syntax racket/base) "x.rkt")
(provide (for-syntax x-val))
(define-syntax (get-val stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ name)
#`(define-for-syntax name #,(syntax-local-value #'x))]))
(get-val x-val))
(require (for-meta -1 'm))
x-val))
--
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.
