On 9 Mar 2011, at 21:14, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> I want a syntax that allows one to explicitly choose which macro-bound
>> variables to export, but otherwise, they should never be visible outside
>> the macro (i.e., be uninterned). When exported, they will just have the
>> name indicated.
>
> You ha
Hello list,
On Tue 08 Mar 2011 23:37, Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 28 Feb 2011 22:28, Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> But you have to, I think. If that module that contained the above
>> define-syntactic-accessor expansion exports "foo", then in another
>> module you have:
>>
>> (define bar (lambda (
On Wed 09 Mar 2011 10:33, Hans Aberg writes:
> I want a syntax that allows one to explicitly choose which macro-bound
> variables to export, but otherwise, they should never be visible outside
> the macro (i.e., be uninterned). When exported, they will just have the
> name indicated.
You have th
On 8 Mar 2011, at 23:37, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Everyone appears to want gensymmed names. OK! Let's consider this to
> be a bug, and that at some point in the future, Guile will start
> gensymming this names.
I want a syntax that allows one to explicitly choose which macro-bound
variables to expo
On Mon 28 Feb 2011 22:28, Andy Wingo writes:
> But you have to, I think. If that module that contained the above
> define-syntactic-accessor expansion exports "foo", then in another
> module you have:
>
> (define bar (lambda () (foo)))
>
> which expands to
>
> (define bar (lambda () val-2341
On Mon 28 Feb 2011 22:49, Noah Lavine writes:
> val (defined in call to define-syntactic-accessor, file.scm:53) = 5
> val (defined in call to define-syntactic-accessor, file.scm:55) = 7
It's not a bad idea. Our docstring situation for values -- like ints,
for example -- is not that good; if we
Hi,
Andy Wingo writes:
> But you have to, I think. If that module that contained the above
> define-syntactic-accessor expansion exports "foo", then in another
> module you have:
>
> (define bar (lambda () (foo)))
>
> which expands to
>
> (define bar (lambda () val-234123))
>
> Val needs to
Hello all,
I believe what I'm saying is equivalent to what Andreas said, but let
me put it in this way: I think the Right Thing to do is to change what
we think of as a name - instead of a name being a symbol, a name would
be a symbol plus the environment it was defined in (which is what a
syntax
On Mon 28 Feb 2011 01:15, Andreas Rottmann writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> (define-accessor get-x set-x! 0)
>>
> This example serves to illustrate the issue, but I want to make clear
> that there are situations where one cannot work around "cleanly" around
> this issue
Sure, a better exampl
Andy Wingo writes:
> Hello all,
>
> Andreas has been struggling with a nonstandard behavior of Guile's
> recently, and we should discuss it more directly.
>
> The issue is in expressions like this:
>
> (define-syntax define-accessor
> (syntax-rules ()
> ((_ getter setter init)
>
On 27 Feb 2011, at 22:37, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Andreas has been struggling with a nonstandard behavior of Guile's
> recently, and we should discuss it more directly.
>
> The issue is in expressions like this:
>
> (define-syntax define-accessor
>(syntax-rules ()
> ((_ getter setter init)
11 matches
Mail list logo
