From 1653e461398434fdbfe7a9459ffe5b0b99de27af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Georges=20Dup=C3=A9ron?= <georges.duperon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:12:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Compatibility with Racket 7

---
 info.rkt                      |  3 ++-
 test/assumption-weak-hash.rkt | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/info.rkt b/info.rkt
index da42862..3117095 100644
--- a/info.rkt
+++ b/info.rkt
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@
                "stxparse-info"
                "alexis-util"
                "scope-operations"
-               "auto-syntax-e"))
+               "auto-syntax-e"
+               "version-case"))
 (define build-deps '("scribble-lib"
                      "racket-doc"
                      "scribble-math"))
diff --git a/test/assumption-weak-hash.rkt b/test/assumption-weak-hash.rkt
index 42e8393..bfb6e49 100644
--- a/test/assumption-weak-hash.rkt
+++ b/test/assumption-weak-hash.rkt
@@ -5,7 +5,8 @@
 ;; memory leaks.
 
 (require (for-syntax racket/private/sc)
-         rackunit)
+         rackunit
+         version-case)
 
 (define h (make-weak-hasheq))
 
@@ -31,8 +32,13 @@
                  (collect-garbage)
                  (hh)))))))
 
-;; but not if the syntax object is a constant, e.g. #'(1 2 3)
-(check-pred all-eq?
+;; but not if the syntax object is a constant, e.g. #'(1 2 3), in Racket < 6.7
+;; I'm not sure how this affects subtemplate in Racket ≥ 6.7, but I suppose it
+;; is not a problem, as the beahviour is the same as in the general case where
+;; the syntax object is not constant.
+(check-pred (version-case
+             [(version< (version) "6.90") all-eq?]
+             [else (negate all-eq?)])
             (for/list ([range-a (in-range 5)])
               (with-syntax ([(xᵢ ...) #'(1 2 3)]) ;; CHANGED THIS LINE
                 (define-syntax (hh stx)
@@ -46,9 +52,14 @@
                            (collect-garbage)
                            (hh))))))
 
-;; nor it the same syntax object is reuqes
+;; nor it the same syntax object is reused, in Racket < 6.7
+;; I'm not sure how this affects subtemplate in Racket ≥ 6.7, but I suppose it
+;; is not a problem, as the beahviour is the same as in the general case where
+;; the syntax object is not shared.
 (define stxobj (datum->syntax #'here '(1 2 3))) ;; cached stxobj here
-(check-pred all-eq?
+(check-pred (version-case
+             [(version< (version) "6.90") all-eq?]
+             [else (negate all-eq?)])
             (for/list ([range-a (in-range 5)])
               (with-syntax ([(xᵢ ...) stxobj]) ;; CHANGED THIS LINE
                 (define-syntax (hh stx)
@@ -70,6 +81,9 @@
 ;;     (datum->syntax #'here '(1 2 3))
 ;; I expected the result to always be different at each execution of the
 ;; with-syntax, but it turns out the syntax object is kept as-is.
+;;
+;; With racket ≥ 6.7, the syntax object is different, i.e. not eq?, in every
+;; invocation of with-syntax.
 (begin
   (let ()
     (define old1 #f)
@@ -81,11 +95,15 @@
                (with-syntax ([(xᵢ ...) #'(1 2 3)])
                  (define-syntax (hh stx)
                    #`#,(syntax-mapping-valvar (syntax-local-value #'xᵢ)))
-                 (unless old1
-                   ;; Initial set!
-                   (set! old1 (hh)))
-                 (andmap identity (for/list ([range-b (in-range 5)])
-                                    (eq? old1 hh))))))))
+                 (if (not old1)
+                     ;; Initial set!
+                     (set! old1 (hh))
+                     (andmap identity (for/list ([range-b (in-range 5)])
+                                        ((version-case
+                                          [(version< (version) "6.90") eq?]
+                                          [else (negate eq?)])
+                                         old1
+                                         (hh))))))))))
 
   (let ()
     (define old2 #f)