Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

> On May 2, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> My initial statement was less precise than my second email. >> `(syntax-local-introduce stx)` adds a single scope, using the >> equivalent of `'flip` mode. That scope is "the current scope" for the >> macro

Re: [racket-users] Quasisyntax bug?

On 2016-02-12 16:27:49 -0800, michael.ballantyne wrote: > Does anyone know if that's a bug, or expected behavior? Pretty sure this is a bug, and should be fixed now via https://github.com/racket/racket/commit/25c9e9347a5060b0653986a65625378504815cad Thanks for the report! Cheers, Asumu --

Re: [racket-users] state of known issue: running handin server without x display

> On May 1, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:56 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users > wrote: >> >> It seems like the right way (well, *one* right way) to fix this, then, >> would be to install a stub

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Alex Knauth wrote: > >> On May 2, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt >> wrote: >> >> The problem with your first example is that there are some extra >> scopes on `#'x` from the context that it's in. If you use >>

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

> On May 2, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > The problem with your first example is that there are some extra > scopes on `#'x` from the context that it's in. If you use > `(datum->syntax #f 'x)` (producing a syntax object with no scopes on > it) then your

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

The problem with your first example is that there are some extra scopes on `#'x` from the context that it's in. If you use `(datum->syntax #f 'x)` (producing a syntax object with no scopes on it) then your tests pass. What `syntax-local-introduce` does is add precisely the scope that the expander

Re: [racket-users] the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

On May 2, 2016, at 9:10 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > No, `syntax-local-introduce` is not hygenic. It's basically "pretend > that this identifier was in the input", which is fundamentally > unhygenic. Sorry to be dense, but I still don't see the "pretend that this

Re: [racket-users] Re: the right way to use `syntax-local-introduce`?

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Matthew Butterick wrote: > > While `syntax-local-introduce` now makes more sense to me, I still find it > weird. Because is `syntax-local-introduce` hygienic? Well it doesn't seem > UN-hygienic, inasmuch as it's not creating identifiers at the

Re: [racket-users] quoting in posts to this email list

> On May 2, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Saša Janiška wrote: > > Eli Barzilay writes: > >> A sign that you're a dinosaur. > > Isn’t that nice these days? ;) He may have meant to say “gentleman” but that may have the same operational meaning. -- You received

[racket-users] 1st CFP: SLE 2016 (9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering)

**Call for Papers** === 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE 2016) Oct 31-Nov 1, 2016, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Co-located with SPLASH 2016) General chair: Tijs van der Storm,

[racket-users] Re: quoting in posts to this email list

Eli Barzilay writes: > A sign that you're a dinosaur. Isn’t that nice these days? ;) Sincerely, Gour -- You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities,