[racket-dev] syntax/syntax proposal

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 15 17:39:27 EDT 2012

On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:

>> Roughly,
>>   stx = syntax | null | (cons syntax stx)
> I had no idea that was the case. The name certainly does not suggest
> that. The fact that the metavariable for syntax objects is `stx' also
> does not help.
> In which cases would I use an `stx' as opposed to a syntax object?

Sounds like this should be documented and possibly even contracted. 

>> I sometimes wonder if we should make a racket/pre-contracts 
>> subcollection and just stuff all of racket/contract/base's dependencies 
>> in there, then say everything else is allowed (maybe even expected) to 
>> use contracts.
> +1


Posted on the dev mailing list.