Alex Knauth

Further update: I got around that problem by attaching the syntax property to the syntax before the macro expands, here: https://github.com/stchang/macrotypes/compare/var-macro If we implement this change with an unhygienic macro...

> So there's no way to get what you need without hardcoding the old binding as a prop in infer? It has to go through a channel that doesn't get...

I think the `current-var-assign` parameter approach is actually the best of the three. One more question about the interface of it: Should we eliminate the `#:tev` keyword argument on the...

@iitalics Are you writing tests for your linear language? I'm adapting your example to demonstrate how it would work using #12.

What about something that's similar to this: https://github.com/jarcane/heresy/blob/master/lib/infix-math.rkt#L17 https://github.com/jarcane/heresy/blob/master/lib/infix-math.rkt#L24 Like this: ``` racket (def syntax-parser macro-name kw-option ... [pat body ...] ...) ``` With maybe an extra `#:define-literals` option that...

Those could be regular macros instead of syntax parameters, and they would export as part of the module, and forms can use them. They don't have to be syntax-parameters, they...

Yes

As mentioned in https://github.com/jackfirth/lens/pull/203#issuecomment-137304756 , some possible features this could have would be arguments for an `atom?` predicate and/or an `expand-node` function.

I just ran into a situation where a `multiply-lens` (for non-zero scalar inputs) would be useful. I wanted a `round-to-the-nearest-thousandth` function and I wanted ``` racket (define round-to-the-nearest-thousandth (lens-transform (multiply-lens...

I think using the name `struct->vector-lens` would be confusing because `struct->vector` puts the extra `struct:position` symbol at the beginning. `struct->list-lens` would work for this though, because `struct->list` doesn't include that...