00:30 <countvajhula> re: my earlier question about macros, I was able to get it to work by using syntax parameters, for which I came across an example in "fear of macros"

00:32 <countvajhula> i guess this is an alternative to breaking hygiene. not sure if it's usable in all such cases but it did the trick in my particular case

00:35 <countvajhula> still don't understand why my original attempt didn't work, but at least I have something that does

00:35 <countvajhula> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

00:48 <jcowan> countvajhula: I am no expert on this, but maybe we can find our way forward. I think that because call-maclambda is hygienic, it has (conceptually) renamed all the identifiers in its definition, and so the inner invocation of maclambda will not work correct.

00:50 <jcowan> whereas syntax parameters only bend bindings, they don't rebind or break them.

00:52 <jcowan> From SRFI 139: "With syntax parameters, instead of introducing the binding unhygienically each time, one instead creates one binding for the keyword, which is then adjusted later when the keyword to supposed to have a different meaning. As no new bindings are introduced, hygiene is preserved. This is similar to the dynamic binding mechanisms available at run-time (in the form of parameters), except that the dynamic

00:52 <jcowan> binding only occurs during macro expansion. The code after macro expansion remains lexically scoped."

01:08 <countvajhula> ahh, that makes sense

01:09 <countvajhula> i guess this means it could be tricky in general to call unhygienic macros from other macros

01:09 <jcowan> Yes, I would say: never do that.

01:09 <countvajhula> very interesting, and that SRFI helps clarify syntax parameters too

01:10 <countvajhula> thank you

04:19 <oats> could I get some critique of a little racket script I wrote? https://paste.xinu.at/fjMOa8I/rkt

04:19 <oats> I'm trying to get used to racket idioms, and did a fun little rewrite of my file/url opener script

04:23 <oats> the curried function form of `define` was a delightful little discovery

06:29 <BitPuffin> Is there a general overview of particular racket idioms?

06:29 <BitPuffin> Like focusing specifically on nice racket stuff, rather than like, the entire guide/reference

06:32 <BitPuffin> https://docs.racket-lang.org/style/Choosing_the_Right_Construct.html

06:32 <BitPuffin> Maybe here

06:40 <BitPuffin> identity function is values? Even though there is identity?

10:33 <bremner> BitPuffin: in #lang racket they are different

10:35 <bremner> although it's true values strictly generalizes identity, and is in #lang racket/base