I agree with John that even if pathological cases are not handled, that'd be fairly helpful.
I'm done with my manual porting of OOPLAI though, and thanks to the C-c C-[ shortcut, it was not that terrible. My $2 (<- chilean pesos) report is that: - most of it was converting `let' and friends (many of which are multi-lines), as well as `cond' and `case' - a bit of PLAI's define-type / type-case - the other big part of it was about custom macros (eg. the OBJECT or CLASS macros that the text is about; in these cases the rules of which parenthesis should be squared could even be taken directly from the define-syntax definition (?)) -- Éric On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:59 PM, John Clements wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> I think one way to do it would be to use read-syntax to get the >> expression, but then also put the file into a string. Walk the >> expression and look for patterns that you want to change rounds to >> squares and then mutate the string and write the file back out again. >> Use the position field of the syntax object to tell you where to >> mutate the string. > > Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. > >> >> You could even take a check-syntax like approach (it is more complex, >> tho) and fully expand the program. Then, when you find 'cond' in the >> origin field of some syntax object you can be sure it really is >> racket/base's cond and not some other thing like, eg >> >> (lambda (cond) (cond 3 (+ 1 2))) > > I think this would wind up being nearly impossible. I think the first one > could be occasionally incorrect (e.g. someone re-binds the identifier 'new', > and then what look like initialization clauses should be treated as > applications), but that seems like a small price to pay for the massive > simplification. > > My guess: the whole thing would take about three days of work. > > John > > >> >> Robby >> >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM, John Clements >> <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Eric Tanter wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks John, that's very helpful! >>>> >>>> Any idea about a whole-file racketify in DrRacket? >>> >>> That's a toughy. What you want is to be able to invert (read-syntax). It >>> seems to me that such a thing should be possible in many of the racket >>> languages, but I'm not aware of an implementation. >>> >>> Actually, thinking about it harder, I suppose you have the original string >>> text of the file, as well, so that makes it a hugely easier; you just need >>> a predicate on the (un-expanded) syntax objects that can tell you whether a >>> syntax list should have square or round brackets. >>> >>> So, here's the $64K question: can you specify precisely which places need >>> to be changed? If so, it sounds like this is do-able. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- Éric >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:16 PM, John Clements wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Eric Tanter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm converting code written with only standard parentheses, introducing >>>>>> squared ones where appropriate. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is obviously not very fun (I'm converting all of OOPLAI), and it >>>>>> would be great if there'd be a way to select an open paren and "convert" >>>>>> it so that the matching closing paren is changed automatically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this feasible? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure Sam and I added this binding last year. C-c C-[ ? I think >>>>> you can look it up in the keybindings. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________ >>> Racket Users list: >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >>> > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
