[racket] define-syntax-class

From: Nadeem Abdul Hamid (nadeem at acm.org)
Date: Wed Apr 27 23:15:18 EDT 2011

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> If I move the syntax class
>> definition into the bodies of define-syntax, then it works, but that
>> defeats the purpose of being able to define a reusable syntax class...
> You'll need to move the syntax class definition into a separate
> module, and then `require' that module `for-syntax'.

Other than the long name, would it make sense for there to be a
'define-syntax-class-for-syntax' form to avoid having to do this?

--- nadeem

Posted on the users mailing list.