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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL6KNi05xNFAYXExOx9kX3%3D5QWoy_CQVoBfWENxBvFPzoonj%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.
