[racket] Macro question - `let' without inferring name?

Also check out syntax-local-infer-name.

Robby

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> You probably want to look at this section of the documentation:
>
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html#%28part._infernames%29
>
> Carl Eastlund
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Erik Silkensen <eriksilkensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm wondering if there's any way to have a macro like
>>
>> (define-syntax (m stx)
>>   (syntax-case stx ()
>>     [(m expr)
>>      #'(let ([t expr])
>>          ;; ....
>>          t)]))
>>
>> that binds expr to t, does some things, and then somehow returns t -- but with whatever name would have been inferred for expr without the let, and not 't' (if that makes sense?)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Erik
>> ____________________
>>   Racket Users list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users