[racket] eginner's question on elementary textual replacement...

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 11 17:17:43 EDT 2012

Yes, that is correct. Macro expansion happens before any of the
optimization steps performed by the compiler.


On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Chust <chust at web.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 22:00 +0100, Rüdiger Asche wrote:
>> [...]
>> So what made you think that defines within modules are inlined? Is it a doc
>> bug, or were you looking at something else than liberal expansion that needs
>> additional work? What does it take for define to translate into
>> define-syntax within a liberal expansion context?
>> [...]
> Hello,
> section 18 of the Racket guide suggests to me that module local bindings
> which are not exported, not mutated and have sufficiently simple values
> will be inlined. This is something that will happen in the bytecode
> compilation or JIT compilation stages, after macro expansion has already
> taken place, so I don't think you will see it in the macro stepper.
> However, I'm no expert concerning the internals of Racket's compiler and
> I may be mistaken here.
> Ciao,
> Thomas
> --
> When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

Posted on the users mailing list.