Re: [racket-users] Converting a list to a syntax object non-recursively?

> I'm not sure if this helps you, but if you have complete control over what > happens to it, you could wrap it in a struct first Yeah, that’s a good point, and it’s one I actually did think of after sending the email, though. Unfortunately, at that point, there’s little reason for me to be

Re: [racket-users] Converting a list to a syntax object non-recursively?

> On May 7, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Alexis King wrote: > > Is there any way to create a new syntax object containing a list without > recursively converting the list’s elements to syntax objects as well? I > have some code where I wanted to use syntax objects as a convenient >

[racket-users] Converting a list to a syntax object non-recursively?

Is there any way to create a new syntax object containing a list without recursively converting the list’s elements to syntax objects as well? I have some code where I wanted to use syntax objects as a convenient mechanism to tag arbitrary datums with source location information (and they will be