Hi,
I have thought about what abstraction is needed to be supported by psyntax
in order to implement srfi-72.
Consider macro expansion of code #'C, ideally we would like to write the
expansion as E#'C with E an expansion operator. For two
expansion operators E,F we would expect to support this E(
The question I posed was If it's possible to use srfi-72 in guile or
racket. It is indeed a wish
of mine that it's implemented because it will most certainly help me write
beutiful code because
that srfi cater to the coding style Ichoose to have. Without it one most
certainly need to use with-synta
An hour and a half ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> It's natural --- but not correct --- to think that #` is responsible
> for hygiene, in which case `(f #'x)' should keep the given `x'
> separate from the `let'-bound `x' in the result.
>
> Instead, hygiene is the responsibility of macro invocation,
On 07/10/2012 10:51 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x 1]) #,stx))
(defin
At Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:51:57 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
> > simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
>
> This does look weird:
>
> #lang racket
> (define-for-syntax (f stx) #`
Hi Ludovic,
> Which branch is it? Did you try the 2.0.6 tarball?
This was using stable. No I didn't try the tarball, but since you asked i just
did
and did in 2 different locations: /opt [no nfs] and /usr/local/src [uses nfs]
and
make check passes on /opt but fails on /usr/local/src
...
Tot
samth made a pointer to
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-72/srfi-72.html
It does not look like guile racket etc. have implemented this yet.
Am I wrong?
This is precisely what I'm after!
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matthew Flatt skribis:
>
> > It's natural
Hi,
Matthew Flatt skribis:
> It's natural --- but not correct --- to think that #` is responsible
> for hygiene, in which case `(f #'x)' should keep the given `x' separate
> from the `let'-bound `x' in the result.
[...]
> If you change the example to
>
> #lang racket
> (begin-for-syntax
>
Hi,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe skribis:
> racket:
> (define-for-syntax (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
>> (define-syntax (g x) (syntax-case x ()((_ y) #`(let ((x y)) #,(f #'x
> )
>> (g 4)
> 4
>
> In guile,
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define-synta
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
>
> It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
> simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x 1]) #,stx))
(define-syntax (m stx)
(with-syntax ([zz (f #'x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10-07-12 15:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
> I did miss something when trying in racket, it's a psyntax bug!
I'm glad you're finally looking harder at the Racket behavior.
> racket: (define-for-syntax (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
>> (define-synt
I did miss something when trying in racket, it's a psyntax bug!
Look!
racket:
(define-for-syntax (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
> (define-syntax (g x) (syntax-case x ()((_ y) #`(let ((x y)) #,(f #'x
)
> (g 4)
4
In guile,
scheme@(guile-user)> (define (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
scheme@(guile-user)
Hi!
Stefan Israelsson Tampe skribis:
> | It’s true that it’s annoying that the wrong binding is silently used.
> | Do you think it’s common enough to justify new syntax?
>
> Yes this highlights a comon problem when implementing racket match with #`.
Sure, but it’s not good-style. ;-) In gener
Hi David,
David Pirotte skribis:
> It compiles fine here, from git,
Which branch is it? Did you try the 2.0.6 tarball?
[...]
>?: 1 [primitive-load
> "/usr/local/src/guile/git-clone/test-suite/tests/load.test"]
>?: 0 [rmdir "/mnt/galia/linux/64/local/src/guile/git-clone/load-test.dir
Ok, I coded a suggested syntax that is a quick solution but maybe not ideal
because really this should be hanlded on the psyntax level. We probably
cannot use the old syntax because it can break old code in other words one
has to introduce new language elements. Also I asked on #scheme and tried
to
15 matches
Mail list logo
