<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/23/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Matthew Flatt</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> At Wed, 23 May 2007 15:58:35 -0700, YC wrote:<br>> > Is there something analogous to (provide) but for the transformation<br>> > environment, e.g. provide-for-syntax?<br><br>> No, but there will be soon (weeks, or a couple of months at the most).
</blockquote><div><br>Cool - that would be awesome ;) </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> > It seems that making a module a custom language doesn't automatically
<br>> > introduce the definitions into transformation environment, i.e. I still need<br>> > to use (require-for-syntax).<br><br>> Right. The `mzscheme' language plays a trick: it exports a<br>> `#%module-begin' that inserts a `(require-for-syntax mzscheme)' into
<br>> the body of a module. This trick doesn't compose well, as you've<br>> discovered.</blockquote><div><br>Interesting - is this buried in C source code or is this in the scheme lib collection? I can't seem to find a