[racket] Introduction to syntax-parse
Stephen Chang writes:
> You need (require (for-syntax syntax/parse)) because you are using it inside a
> define-syntax.
Aaaaahhh... that does it, thanks!
Laurent writes:
> How much work would be required to prevent people from falling into it ever again?
> Maybe saying so in the docs at the right place wouldn't hurt, but people may still miss
> it.
That's my case. The line (require (for-syntax syntax/parse)) is just
above the example, but on a quick scan I just see "require", so I type
the more familiar (require syntax/parse).
> Maybe making the error message more specific like "Did you forget to (require
> (for-syntax syntax/parse)) ?" ? Or is it too specific?
It would already help a lot if the error message said something about
syntax-parse being undefined. But it complains about the pattern,
which is kind of strange. It looks like syntax-parse is already there
but incomplete.
Konrad.