BTW.
Of cause if you read the doc's for srfi-72 you will see a whole
different machinery that brings many features, they explicitly states
6 facts in the abstract for which I adress one in the code.
On the other hand when they try to sell it it they just uses examples
for the case for witch I try
How about
h-quasisyntax
for hygienic quasisyntax ?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
>> Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator [...]
>
> I'm pretty sure this is also false. One of the main points of SRFI-72
> is
Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
> Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator [...]
I'm pretty sure this is also false. One of the main points of SRFI-72
is the improved hygiene algorithm, which is quite different than psyntax
in its details. Unless I'm mistaken, you have
I didn't know that this was a taken name already,
Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator that mix
well with the current guile macro system but is not a perfect replacement
(yet)
I'll check it out, But srfi-72 really covers a need I have when
writing macros with
syntax-p
Just saw this.
Right, "syntactic closures" is the name of a macro system by Alan
Bawden and Jonathan Rees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_closures
http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref/Syntactic-Closures.html#Syntactic-Closures
So, it would be good to choos
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. I was actually hesistant to call this srfi-72 because of trying to
> do what it want
>more than what it say's. A main trick to simulate the effect was to
> introduce
>a closure in the syntax a
Hi Alex!
> Note SRFI-72 is not an implementation of syntactic-closures.
> It's an alternate hygiene algorithm closer to the R6RS one which
> includes a compatible syntax-case and some convenience utilities.
To comments to this:
1. The main reason for SRFI-72 is to e.g. capture the let bound y in
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I managed to do what you said, the result is at
>
> https://gitorious.org/syntax-closures
>
> I changed it so that it is enough to do
>
> (use-modules (srfi sr
Hi,
I managed to do what you said, the result is at
https://gitorious.org/syntax-closures
I changed it so that it is enough to do
(use-modules (srfi srfi-72))
and hacking along with it using both
#, and #,@
Especially #,@ was difficult but using the ck macro
the appending become more natural
Ok, the unsyntax-72 code cannot be cleanly done I think. You really need
to use a reader macro. I leave the code base modding the reader char #.
as before and will simple wait for a a possibility of per port reader
option to be configured
via a library.
/Stefan
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:38 PM, An
Hi wingo:
Yes this is something I can do. But on a second thought I can't find a way to
handle unsyntax-splicing without a splicing macro. Modding #, and not #,@
just screams for difficult errors to show up. Therefor I will in stead
just write
another macro unsyntax-72 that people can use.
btw, I
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
writes:
>> > (read-hash-extend #\_ syntax-closure-reader)
>>
>> Have you tried having your srfi-72 module export a binding for unsyntax?
>
> I would like to use that of cause, but does it mix well with other
> already written code?
It should wor
ther reader features. Don't know to what a degree you need to do to
achieve this.
Is it something that a library can do? This relates to the previous
question. Anyway
I just thoght your thoughts and published a repo,
https://gitorious.org/syntax-closures
And I also suggeted to ijp to put it into guild-hall.
Regards
Stefan
Hi,
On Thu 17 Jan 2013 21:51, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
writes:
> Hi all, I wanted to resurrect the idea of a syntactic closure. I did
> some thinking and
Meta: I seem to be receiving your mails with this really strange line
wrapping. It's been this way for a while, and it makes it difficult to
14 matches
Mail list logo