[plt-scheme] syntax-case vs. #lang scheme/base

On Oct 16, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jakub Piotr Cłapa wrote:

> Michael Sperber wrote:
>> "Carl Eastlund" <cce at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>>> 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.
>> Arglll ... I see that it's not even bound in scheme/base, but the # 
>> %app
>> error message keeps me from even seeing that.  Thanks!
>
> This is probably a common mistake when migrating from 3xx. I was  
> bitten by that as well.
>
> Maybe a special case could be made to detect require-for-syntax?

I've also been bitten by this several times; unfortunately, it seems  
like the hidden piece of information here lives only in the  
programmer's mind: "This require-for-syntax thing is not a runtime  
animal: if it's unbound, I want to know about it before you report any  
other syntax errors."

John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2484 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20081016/99deeb17/attachment.p7s>