You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is to record an initial thought about more general use of who (in the sense of define/who that binds a who syntax parameter to a defined name) in Rhombus. There seems to be many cases where existing Racket functions expect symbolic names, for example, in make-parameter (see racket/racket#4810). Maybe providing and encouraging the use of who will be a good idea? Ideas are welcome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think a check-like macro (as used internally in Racket) can also be a good idea, and relates to who because both are inspired by Racket-internal macros.
This is to record an initial thought about more general use of
who
(in the sense ofdefine/who
that binds awho
syntax parameter to a defined name) in Rhombus. There seems to be many cases where existing Racket functions expect symbolic names, for example, inmake-parameter
(see racket/racket#4810). Maybe providing and encouraging the use ofwho
will be a good idea? Ideas are welcome.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: