From: Carl Eastlund (cce at ccs.neu.edu) Date: Thu Oct 16 05:24:33 EDT 2008 |
|
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Michael Sperber <sperber at deinprogramm.de> wrote: > > Thanks for the quick answers, Carl and Dave! Now, I did try this: > > (require-for-syntax scheme/base) > > which doesn't work, but which I always assumed to be synonymous to the > above. How is it different? It's obsolete - require-for-syntax is a PLT v3xx-ism; (require (for-syntax ...)) is a PLT 4.x-ism. -- Carl Eastlund
Posted on the users mailing list. |
|