[racket-dev] syntax/syntax proposal

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


+2