[racket] Another Canonical Use of Macros?

On Nov 25, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:

> I agree.  It doesn't bind in the sense of extending an environment, but it does in the sense of causing a new set of references to be resolved, e.g. x.method_name() for any x that now implements the trait in question.

Hmm... It's not really worth arguing about, but I think that this is a stretch. It seems clear to me (I guess it would, wouldn't it?) that the binding-ness or non-binding-ness is distinctly secondary here to the simple fact that I want to abstract over something that's not in an expression position, and thus can't be replaced by a function call. I suppose I should come up with more examples.

John


> 
> Carl Eastlund
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:54 PM, John Clements <clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> 
> >  they're not binding any new identifiers; they're just declaring that this type implements this trait.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I still think this category and binding should be merged into 'says something about an identifier' -- Matthias
> 
> 
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
> 
>