[racket] eginner's question on elementary textual replacement...

From: Thomas Chust (chust at web.de)
Date: Sun Mar 11 17:06:59 EDT 2012

On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 22:00 +0100, Rüdiger Asche wrote:
> [...]
> So what made you think that defines within modules are inlined? Is it a doc 
> bug, or were you looking at something else than liberal expansion that needs 
> additional work? What does it take for define to translate into 
> define-syntax within a liberal expansion context?
> [...]


section 18 of the Racket guide suggests to me that module local bindings
which are not exported, not mutated and have sufficiently simple values
will be inlined. This is something that will happen in the bytecode
compilation or JIT compilation stages, after macro expansion has already
taken place, so I don't think you will see it in the macro stepper.

However, I'm no expert concerning the internals of Racket's compiler and
I may be mistaken here.


When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.

Posted on the users mailing list.