I see now that I misunderstood what syntax-parse can really do. It is absurdly more powerful than I realized at first. There was no need for a separate "collect" macro as it should just be a syntax class within the main macro. I've got it all working now in relatively simple cases that I should be able to build upon without troubles.
Deren On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Deren Dohoda <deren.doh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > At the moment, "collect" is syntax, itself defined through syntax-parse. > So you suggest making "collect" a literal and changing the underlying macro > name? > > It's part of a #lang experiment I'm writing which manages a series of > actions from a controller. The file, when required, provides a (run > controller model) procedure which takes a controller for executing (collect > ...) actions and a model to store the data returned by the (collect ...) > output. > > Right now what I have is something like this with some cluttering details > omitted > #lang experiment > (define-experiment > (collect uv #:points 10 #:seconds 2) ; collect a point every 2 seconds > 10 times > (collect uv #:points 10 #:minutes 30) > ...) > > But it does no checking that it is called with anything other than > (define-experiment exps ...) which is Not Good. > > This will eventually morph into something much more detailed, like > #lang experiment > (define-experiment > (with-reference ; optional > (with-standard ; optional > (collect uv #:points 10 #:seconds 10) > (collect uv #:points 20 #:minutes 1))) > (with-reference ; optional > (collect uv #:points 10 #:seconds 10) > (collect uv #:points 20 #:minutes 1) > (collect uv #:points 30 #:hours 1))) > > And the (define-experiment ...) macro will need to reorder all this so it > makes sense in how a person interacts with a device. Describing an > experiment and running it are usually very different! So whatever strategy > is adopted for "collect" will multiply quickly. > > I remember reading about how there are some gotchas with treating macro > names as literals in patterns (maybe this is a syntax-case problem?) and I > wanted to avoid just assuming things. > > Deren > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Chang <stch...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: > >> You might want to specify "collect" in #:datum-literals if it is not a >> defined name. >> >> Can you describe some usage examples? That may lead to better insight >> for the implementation. >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Deren Dohoda <deren.doh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Suppose I have a macro (experiment ...) which is intended, among other >> things, to be composed of uses of a macro (collect ...). >> > >> > For instance: >> > (experiment >> > (collect ...) >> > (collect ...) ...) >> > >> > To my understanding, "collect" is not a literal. Can I turn the collect >> macro itself into a syntax class somehow? Should I instead create a dummy >> literal "collect" for this purpose, and then create a (collect* ...) macro? >> > >> > Thanks for any advice. >> > >> > Deren >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Racket Users" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
