Just because there does not appear to be any logic behind a certain
decision does not mean it's a bug.
That being said, I've always thought of the compiler workflow in Lisp as
being (conceptually): Reader / Data -> Macro Expander -> Compiler.
Naturally, macros must be expanded in the macro ex
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Bill Robertson
wrote:
> While it may violate the principle of least surprise (until you
> realize/learn that try/catch is a special form), I don't think it's a bug.
>
Since there's no good engineering reason not to permit macros like (rethrow
...) to work, it is a
While it may violate the principle of least surprise (until you
realize/learn that try/catch is a special form), I don't think it's a bug.
On Monday, April 1, 2013 4:00:31 PM UTC-4, Cedric Greevey wrote:
>
> IMO, the real problem here is try not macroexpanding its body before
> looking for its c
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Alan Malloy wrote:
> This is how every macro and special form works. I know you like to
> complain, but the alternative is simply not possible: macros have complete
> control of expanding their bodies, and any macros therein are expanded
> later, not before. Try wr
This is how every macro and special form works. I know you like to
complain, but the alternative is simply not possible: macros have complete
control of expanding their bodies, and any macros therein are expanded
later, not before. Try writing a macro system that goes the other way, and
see how
IMO, the real problem here is try not macroexpanding its body before
looking for its catches. IMO that's a bug, and indeed that the rethrow
macro doesn't work when the s-expression it expands to would work in its
place represents a violation, at least in spirit, of homoiconicity. There
are operator
I think that's what is going on too. I tried quoting catch in the rethrow
macro, but that didn't do it (didn't expect it to either).
(defmacro rethrow [ex-class] `('catch ~ex-class x# (throw x#)))
I still wonder if there is some sort of macrofoolery that would get it past
the compiler. I'm not
Define rethrow as a function; Alf's probably right. Also, change to:
~message.
user=> (defn rethrow [ex-class] `(catch ~ex-class x# (throw x#)))
#'user/rethrow
user=>
user=> (defmacro handle-ex [message & body]
`(try ~@body ~(rethrow IllegalArgumentException)
(catch Exception x# (throw
On Monday, April 1, 2013 10:26:43 AM UTC-7, Alf wrote:
> I am guessing the problem is that the rethrow macro is expanded and passed
> to the reader/compiler before the handle-ex macro is. And at that point the
> compiler sees catch as a "standalone-symbol", not as part of the try
> special form
Hey Bill.
I am guessing the problem is that the rethrow macro is expanded and passed
to the reader/compiler before the handle-ex macro is. And at that point the
compiler sees catch as a "standalone-symbol", not as part of the try
special form. Macro-experts, please correct me :)
Tried to quickly
IIRC "catch" is auxiliary syntax---it only has meaning within a (try ...)
form.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Bill Robertson wrote:
> I was all excited when I was able to consolidate a lot of try/catch logic
> behind a macro earlier this morning. All was good.
>
> I felt like I could do a bett
11 matches
Mail list logo
