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

About a month ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
> 
> In retrospect, what happened with your error appears to be the
> compiler's failure to report the top/leftmost, earliest error in the
> program's source.  Unfortunately, I haven't figured out why yet.

Because it's a `define-for-syntax', so it's syntax code that could
have made the `require-for-syntax' valid somehow...

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!