* Mark H Weaver [2014-06-14 18:45:59-0400]
> > Currently, Guile stores location info using a weak-key hash table, keyed
> > on the datums read from the file. This means that location info cannot
> > be stored for bare symbols or other immediate values (booleans,
> > characters, small exact intege
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Currently, Guile stores location info using a weak-key hash table, keyed
> on the datums read from the file. This means that location info cannot
> be stored for bare symbols or other immediate values (booleans,
> characters, small exact integers).
Symbols are not immedi
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> A workaround is to get location info from the outer syntax object ‘x’:
>
> (define-syntax zero!
> (lambda (x)
> (syntax-case x ()
> ((_ var)
>(begin
>(unless (identifier? #'var)
> (syntax-violation 'zero! "identifier exp
A workaround is to get location info from the outer syntax object ‘x’:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
(define-syntax zero!
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ var)
(begin
(unless (identifier? #'var)
(syntax-violation 'zero! "i
Hello!
Here is very simple code with error (lines numbered with `cat -n`)
1 ;(read-enable 'copy)
2
3 (define-syntax zero!
4(lambda (x)
5 (syntax-case x ()
6((_ var)
7 (begin
8 (unless (identifier? #'var)
9
It turned out, that the above solution doesn't work
exactly as expected -- since the scopes of "private"
and "interface" get separated (by the with-syntax
form that I have been so proud of), it is impossible
for the public forms to refer to private bindings.
To solve that issue, I had to pass the
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:30:32 +0100
Panicz Maciej Godek wrote:
> After reading some of the original paper by Dybvig[1],
> I finally managed to get the macro right. The trick
> was to use "with-syntax", which -- I have to admit
> -- is still a little magical to me. But by mimicking
> the way the proc
After reading some of the original paper by Dybvig[1],
I finally managed to get the macro right. The trick
was to use "with-syntax", which -- I have to admit
-- is still a little magical to me. But by mimicking
the way the procedure "generate-temporaries" has
been used in the Dybvig's implementatio
Hi,
is there any way to control the order of macro expansion?
Let's consider a particular problem.
I'm trying to write a macro to control the visibility
of certain definitions. I wrote it once, using define-macro,
but it seemed to loose some relevant information,
so I decided to rewrit
On 15 Jan 2011, at 21:39, Neil Jerram wrote:
With my current Guile,
scheme@(guile-user)> (version)
$4 = "1.9.14.17-44f43"
the third case behaves as you would expect:
When I upgrade, then it too works. So it was a bug that has been
fixed, then.
scheme@(guile-user)> (version)
$1 = "1.9.14.
On 15 Jan 2011, at 21:39, Neil Jerram wrote:
With my current Guile,
scheme@(guile-user)> (version)
$4 = "1.9.14.17-44f43"
the third case behaves as you would expect:
That is right, I used the stable versions 1.8.x, x = 7, 8.
Unfortunately, when I try to install guile-1.9.14, I get the err
Hans Aberg writes:
> In the code below the 'loop' and 'begin' examples will execute the
> while' loop, but if put into the body of a function, 'while' will not
> run. So why, and how to fix it?
>
> Just copy and paste the examples below into guile. For the two first,
> I get
> 0123456789
> 01
In the code below the 'loop' and 'begin' examples will execute the
'while' loop, but if put into the body of a function, 'while' will not
run. So why, and how to fix it?
Just copy and paste the examples below into guile. For the two first,
I get
0123456789
0123456789done!3
but for the
13 matches
Mail list logo
