hm, is there a generic interface to making pict-convertibles? Or are we stuck with structure properties?

Also, are there any good guide or tutorials on using framework to make GUI applications? I’ve been looking around it’s documentation but I’m a little unsure how all these pieces fit together.

@matias Take a look at Alex’ blog: https://alex-hhh.github.io/tags/racket.html

Start here: https://alex-hhh.github.io/2018/10/chess-game-using-racket-s-pasteboard.html

@matias there is not. (tho i see that you might have opened a PR for one a year or so ago? https://github.com/racket/pict/pull/46 )

(FWIW that PR is just missing docs and some tests I think)

@mflatt Is there any case where the datum in syntax-binding-set->syntax does not need to match the symbol in syntax-binding-set-extend? The docs seem to indicate that it just leads to a differently named syntax object (like, say, with rename-in), but whenever I do that identifier-binding just returns that the syntax is unbound.

For example:

(identifier-binding
  (syntax-binding-set->syntax
   (syntax-binding-set-extend
    (syntax-binding-set)
    'foo
    0
    (module-path-index-join #f #f))
   'foo))

returns '(#<module-path-index> foo #<module-path-index> foo 0 0 0)

but replace the second foo with bar results in a #f.

@leif It could be relevant if the lexical information of the resulting syntax object is copied onto a different datum using datum->syntax.

Otherwise I don’t think it does anything, no.

@lexi.lambda Oh, so something like this?:

(datum->syntax
 (syntax-binding-set->syntax
  (syntax-binding-set-extend
   (syntax-binding-set)
   'foo
   0
   (module-path-index-join #f #f))
  'bar)
 'foo)

Odd, but okay, thanks.

Yes, that’s right.

oh yeah… I knew this felt familiar. :wink:

I suppose I should get on that…

Whoa, I did not realize that syntax-binding-set was a thing. That’s been around since 7.1 (ish)?