Matthew Flatt

@samth Does this problem still happen on your machine?

@slaymaker1907 Sorting out a dot protocol is an open issue in the prototype at #163. So, unless that prototype seems like entirely the wrong direction for some other reason, you...

@jeapostrophe - thanks for the comments. "Binding" is a better word than "pattern", so I've switched to using that word. Where "binding" was previously used for the `define-syntax` sense of...

New draft pushed. Experimenting with a Rhombus prototype helped clarify which pieces belong in this proposal and which details are "a language built with the Rhombus expander". The resulting proposal...

@jeapostrophe You're right that Racket passes along a synthesized identifier to implicit implementations, and that has worked fine, so it's probably better to keep that behavior here. Changed.

You're right that this sort of grouping is not specifically handled and would need some cooperation from an enclosing form (such as the module top-level and block forms). There's a...

@sorawee If I understand what you mean, `#%block` in the #163 prototype can serve that role. Currently, some primitive forms expand to `rhombus-block` instead of going through `#%block`, but almost...

The intent is to have a Rhombus-level API, and everything would be presented and explained in those terms (so, like Chez Scheme relative to Racket).

I've updated the "shrubbery-rhombus-0" package with a proof-of-concept `defn.sequence_macro` form. The module top-level form and the block (definition-context) form recognize a definition-sequence macro binding before trying a definition or expression....

@michaelballantyne I think I don't understand the question. While I can see how specifying contexts on arguments work work — like using `syntax-parse` with syntax classes that trigger local expansion...