[racket-dev] src-id in identifier-binding for same-module definitions

Yes, it can be ".2", etc. The numbers are generated as needed to create
distinct names --- deterministically for a given module compilation,
assuming that all macros used by expansion are deterministic.

At Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:36:50 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Does that mean that I can/should just drop the .1 to get the defined name?
> Can it also be .2 etc?
> 
> Sam
> On Jul 16, 2014 4:34 AM, "Matthew Flatt" <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> 
> > That `posn1.1` is a unreadable symbol that stands for the symbol
> > `posn1` plus some marks that distinguish it.
> >
> > In other words, `posn1.1` bridges (in an ugly way) the symbol-based
> > world of module environments and the identifier-based world of syntax.
> > In the future, I hope to shift module environments to be
> > identifier-based to avoid these unreadable symbols.
> >
> > At Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:10:26 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > > If you take this program and fully-expand it in the macro stepper:
> > >
> > > #lang racket
> > > (struct posn (x y))
> > > (define p1 (posn 1 2))
> > >
> > > You see that the residual program has an application of the `posn1`
> > > function, which is the hidden constructor. And indeed, the
> > > fully-expanded program has a definition of `posn1`. However, if you
> > > click on the use of `posn1`, the macro stepper will tell you that it's
> > > defined in this module as `posn1.1`, and provided as `posn1.1` as
> > > well. If you write program to grovel through the fully-expanded
> > > syntax, you get these same results as the `src-id` and
> > > `nominal-src-id` from `identifier-binding`.
> > >
> > > Why is this? And is there a way to get from `posn1.1` to `posn1`
> > reliably?
> > >
> > > Sam
> >