From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu) Date: Thu Jul 21 11:18:03 EDT 2005 |
|
At 21 Jul 2005 10:02:51 -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > Why doesn't this work? Because `define-syntax-for-syntax' would require `require-for-syntax-for-syntax' or nested `begin-for-syntax', and the current module/syntax implementation can't deal with arbitrarily many phases in a single module. > Must I put the > definition of x in its own module, and require-for-syntax it? Yes, unfortunately. Matthew
Posted on the users mailing list. |
|