Re: Expansion problem

Jean-Michel, if you would be happy with a Racket-specific solution, then 
I would like to recommend that you use `syntax-parse`, which is much 
more powerful than `syntax-rules`, and will result in a better 
implementation:  https://docs.racket-lang.org/syntax/stxparse.html

If, however, you also *need* to use this code with Schemes or 
descendants of Scheme, then I suggest using `syntax-case`, if they all 
have it: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/stx-patterns.html

I said "need" above; I suggest not trying to make your code portable to 
Schemes merely for the sake of being portable -- only if you need to.  
We haven't really called Racket a Scheme in recent years. Racket has a 
wealth of valuable features that no Scheme has, and, if you try to keep 
your Racket code portable to Schemes, you're missing out on a lot of 
Racket power.  Schemers are kindred spirits of Racketeers, and sometimes 
Racket packages are ported to Schemes, and vice versa, but we each must 
see how far we can go along our own different paths. :)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.