make-traversal's optional argument is now ignored
Recent changes eliminated it, but it seems better (for backwards compatibility) to leave it there but ignore it
This commit is contained in:
parent
2170e172a4
commit
4997800a76
|
@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
|
|||
[make-traversal
|
||||
(-> namespace?
|
||||
(or/c path-string? #f)
|
||||
(values (->* (syntax?) ((-> syntax? void?)) void?)
|
||||
(values (->* (syntax?) ((-> any/c void?)) void?)
|
||||
(-> void?)))]
|
||||
|
||||
[current-max-to-send-at-once
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
|
|||
[tl-phase-to-requires (make-hash)]
|
||||
[tl-module-lang-requires (make-hash)]
|
||||
[expanded-expression
|
||||
(λ (sexp)
|
||||
(λ (sexp [ignored void])
|
||||
(parameterize ([current-directory (or user-directory (current-directory))]
|
||||
[current-load-relative-directory user-directory])
|
||||
(let ([is-module? (syntax-case sexp (module)
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -622,11 +622,7 @@ Check Syntax is a part of the DrRacket collection, but is implemented via the to
|
|||
@defproc[(make-traversal [namespace namespace?]
|
||||
[path (or/c #f path-string?)])
|
||||
(values (->* (syntax?)
|
||||
((-> (and/c syntax?
|
||||
(λ (x)
|
||||
(define lst (syntax->list x))
|
||||
(and lst (andmap identifier? lst))))
|
||||
void?))
|
||||
((-> any/c void?))
|
||||
void?)
|
||||
(-> void?))]{
|
||||
This function creates some local state about a traversal of syntax objects
|
||||
|
@ -635,7 +631,9 @@ Check Syntax is a part of the DrRacket collection, but is implemented via the to
|
|||
one if the program is a module) and then the second one should be called to
|
||||
indicate there are no more.
|
||||
|
||||
The optional argument to the first function is called for each sequence
|
||||
The optional argument to the first function is ignored.
|
||||
It is left there for historical reasons. In the past it
|
||||
was called for each sequence
|
||||
of binding identifiers encountered in @racket[define-values], @racket[define-syntaxes],
|
||||
and @racket[define-values-for-syntax].
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user