[racket] Macro question - `let' without inferring name?

You probably want to look at this section of the documentation:

http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html#%28part._infernames%29

Carl Eastlund

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Erik Silkensen <eriksilkensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if there's any way to have a macro like
>
> (define-syntax (m stx)
>   (syntax-case stx ()
>     [(m expr)
>      #'(let ([t expr])
>          ;; ....
>          t)]))
>
> that binds expr to t, does some things, and then somehow returns t -- but with whatever name would have been inferred for expr without the let, and not 't' (if that makes sense?)
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>