[racket] Strange difference between (define (for-syntax)) and (define-for-syntax)

From: Dmitry Pavlov (dpavlov at ipa.nw.ru)
Date: Wed Aug 29 05:29:46 EDT 2012


> Is require-for-syntax even a form in #lang racket?  I thought it doesn't
> exist outside the mzscheme legacy language, at least according to
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/mzscheme/Old_Syntactic_Forms.html#(form._((lib._mzscheme/main..rkt)._require-for-syntax))

I agree with you. It is strange that (require-for-syntax)
works in #lang racket. That misled me.

Best regards,


Posted on the users mailing list.