@mflatt Okay cool, thanks. :wink:

:slightly_smiling_face: *

If I have a macro that expands to a class, is it possible to have a field that is only in scope for the macro itself?

Something like this almost works, in that the method is only in scope for the macro, but still won’t work if the user creates a method with the same name. https://gist.github.com/LeifAndersen/1a5b188574c6756f6b888c7365276544

@samth is it ok if I merge https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/pull/599 tonight?

@leif Introduce a define-local-member-name alongside your class

@mflatt Isn’t that what the example did?

Anyway, Michael helped me find a solution, as shown here: https://gist.github.com/LeifAndersen/1318798979267ea46ae8ac3933c64989

We ‘think’ the problem is that the internal method name is just a symbol (rather than an identifier), which is what causes the error.

Oh, sorry — I misread it. I’m not sure why that didn’t work, and I can’t investigate more just now.

But because its the internal binding, an identifier should work (we think anyway).

So we’re going to submit a bug report.

@mflatt okay cool, thanks.

@ben that seems fine to me

thanks