Re: Shorter lambda expressions

2014-01-24 Thread Eli Barzilay
prefer. (Not on the list; feel free to forward...) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

Re: [racket-dev] Enhancement to the syntax system?

2012-07-10 Thread Eli Barzilay
and skipping > different-phase rename wraps during resolution. I'm not sure if this > is a good idea or if anyone has tried it. (And this is what Matthew's last example gets by changing `f' to a macro, right? Also, Stefan posted a related message to the scheme-reports list where he imlpemented some new #. thing which is (roughly speaking) something that expands to a `let-syntax' and therefore tries to do the same.) In any case, it would be nice if the original example I posted (which is a variant of what was discussed originally) would throw an error instead of looking right in a way that is wrong... -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

Re: [racket-dev] Enhancement to the syntax system?

2012-07-10 Thread Eli Barzilay
with-syntax ([zz (f #'x)]) #`(let ([x 2]) zz))) (m) evaluates to 1, but if I change the first two "stx" names into "x" *or* if I change the argument name for the macro to "x", then it returns 2. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))

Re: Syntax Parameters documentation for guile

2012-01-06 Thread Eli Barzilay
8 hours ago, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Wed 04 Jan 2012 01:33, Eli Barzilay writes: > > > (Ugh, medieval programming...) > > Goes along with the "guild" stuff, I guess :) (That was a scribble hint...) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (

Re: *current-language*

2012-01-06 Thread Eli Barzilay
ket ... still work. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

News>> gmane.lisp.guile.devel: Re: syntax-local-value [racket]

2012-01-06 Thread Eli Barzilay
port)) (parameterize ([current-output-port ...something...]) (printf "something") (parameterize ([current-output-port orig-stdout]) (some-function When I thought about this, I was pleasantly surprised that `syntax-parameter-value' could be used in exactly the same way. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

Re: *current-language*

2012-01-06 Thread Eli Barzilay
f > `unquote' would be. FWIW, that's true -- and a reason that I plan to change what xrepl (our command-line thing which I added to Racket recently) so that it intercepts any line that starts with a "," which means that it would work no matter what the actual language read

Re: Syntax Parameters documentation for guile

2012-01-03 Thread Eli Barzilay
An hour and a half ago, Ian Price wrote: > Eli Barzilay writes: > > >> the macro is used. Examples include an 'if' form that binds the > >> result of the test to an 'it' binding, or class macros that > >> introduce a special 'self'

Re: add regexp-split: a summary and new proposal

2011-12-31 Thread Eli Barzilay
11 hours ago, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 31 December 2011 15:30, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > But there's one more point that bugs me about the python thing: the > > resulting list has both the matches and the non-matching gaps, and > > knowing which is which is tricky.  F

Re: Syntax Parameters documentation for guile

2011-12-30 Thread Eli Barzilay
of exp forms > use the new transformers. A possibly useful analogy is with `fluid-let' which doesn't create new bindings, but rather `set!'s them. But IMO `fluid-let' should die, so using parameters is a better example... -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

Re: add regexp-split: a summary and new proposal

2011-12-30 Thread Eli Barzilay
l substrings. One last not-too-related note: this is IMO all a by-product of a bad choice of common regexp practices where capturing groups always refer to the last match only. In a world that would have made a better choice, I'd expect: > (regexp-match #rx"(foo+)+ bar&q

Re: [PATCH] add regexp-split

2011-12-30 Thread Eli Barzilay
with just a single argument, then that last optional flag is t -- which is an unconventional thing for elisp functions... (BTW, I'm subscribed to the list now, so this should go through.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:

Re: [PATCH] add regexp-split

2011-12-30 Thread Eli Barzilay
Just now, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 31 December 2011 10:32, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > 40 minutes ago, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > >> > >> I think Racket does the right thing by keeping *all* the empty > >> strings in place. > > > > Well, I do think that

Re: [PATCH] add regexp-split

2011-12-30 Thread Eli Barzilay
ou went in a different direction. (And we did not follow perl in all aspects, as those tests clarify.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

Re: [PATCH 2/5] [mingw]: Have compiled-file-name produce valid names.

2011-05-02 Thread Eli Barzilay
example, some macro that wants to generate a path), we'll use strings or byte strings, with the latter more common for lower level things. (But I'm just rambling now, I haven't slept in N days -- so feel free to ignore me...) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!