I am struggling with use unique name variable within srfi-53
(require (planet dvanhorn/srfi-53:1:0/srfi-53))
(syntax-inspect (syntax-temporaries (x y z))) ;==> (temp~1 temp~2 temp~3)
> '(temp temp temp)
All unique name are same: temp
How to use unique name variable within srfi-53 ?
__
> I want to different two kind types of comment - first - is comment which
> begin from start line (first symbol of line is '/' or whitespaces and '/'
> ), second - is comment which start with '/' but beffore was reading any
> other symbol (except whitespaces)
> Javascript regexp for it is "^//.*\n
Hi!
On 23/09/13 17:59, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Is the following code really that much more complicated that define-macro? --
Matthias
Well, it certainly might not! But I don't find confident enough with
syntax-case (less with syntax-parse), and I also have some code I will
reuse that use
Without actually `require`-ing syntax-parse, could syntax-rules and
syntax-case simply report this one special case differently? If the
specific not-expression is the exact syntax `_`, then report
not-an-expression (as usual) but also add the p.s. "Are you trying to
use syntax-parse? "
Maybe
Hello from a new (not young) beginner --
I'm planning to attend RacketCon [1], and am currently working on the
Coursera class offering [2] from the University of British Columbia (UBC)
by Prof. Gregor Kiczales: Introduction to Systematic Program Design - Part
1, which uses the BSL in DrRacket. We
Lawrence Woodman wrote at 09/25/2013 01:50 AM:
On 24/09/13 23:28, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Anyway, I'm thinking of starting a side business of developing
general-purpose Racket packages on demand -- modules that satisfy all
clients' requirements and are incidentally open-sourced. Perhaps with
some
Laurent writes:
> Unsyntax-splicing to the rescue!
Great, this evokes memories of Common Lisp macros... More importantly, it works!
J. Ian Johnson writes:
> This is such a common pattern that there is support for it with a
> feature called syntax templates, in
> syntax/parse/experimental/te
On 09/25/2013 12:01 AM, Edward Earnest wrote:
Good evening all,
This might be a silly question -- but what is the official status of
the included SRFIs in Racket as they relate to #lang racket?
I am working on my first Racket program and I need to be able to test
if a given string is present
This is, in part, the essence of the technique, so you're already on
the right track.
Sam
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Thank you for the references. I will read them shortly.
> For now, I got away with a macro-generating macro:
>
>
> (define-syntax (def-with-c
Sam,
Thank you for the references. I will read them shortly.
For now, I got away with a macro-generating macro:
(define-syntax (def-with-comment stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ (name comment . params) . body)
#'(begin
(begin-for-syntax
(hash-set! comments (syntax->dat
Ryan,
After some short research, I figured that the following
small patch will fix the issue:
diff --git a/ffi.rkt.bk b/ffi.rkt
index c94aefb..1f610fb 100644
--- a/ffi.rkt.bk
+++ b/ffi.rkt
@@ -7,17 +7,17 @@
(provide (all-from-out "ffi-constants.rkt")
(protect-out (all-defined-out)))
The SRFI ship with Racket and when they provide useful functionality
not duplicated in the rest of Racket, I don't see any reason why you
wouldn't want to use them, which is why they are shipped and indexed
in the documentation. (Situations where they duplicate are stuff like
promises and the itera
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
>
> However, I do not see how to fix that. Does anybody?
> What is the recommended way to do that sort of thing in Racket?
This turns out to be a subtle issue, but one we've thought a lot
about. The best way to learn about how we do this in R
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
>
> > Maybe making the error message more specific like "Did you forget to
> (require
> > (for-syntax syntax/parse)) ?" ? Or is it too specific?
>
> It would already help a lot if the error message said something about
> syntax-parse being u
Thansk for answer, but it can't help. Simple example latter -
#lang racket/base
(require racket/string
parser-tools/lex
(prefix-in : parser-tools/lex-sre))
(define-tokens my-tokens (BCOMMENT COMMENT OT))
(define-empty-tokens my-empty-tokens (EOF NEWLINE))
(define-lex-abbre
Валентин,
maybe this short example could help
http://pastebin.com/ncZpH49E
>
> Hello. I need write rule for lexer for recognize comment which begin from
> first column of line.
> I have next regexp for comment (:seq "//" (:* (:~ CR LF))), aftrer add
> cr/lf to begin of expression i write (:seq L
Hello,
Suppose I am trying to have my own variant of (define),
which tags text comments to things that it defines.
I am keeping the comments in a hashtable for whatever
purpose, and in the following example I am just printing
them to the standard output:
~ defcom.rkt
#lang racket
(define-fo
This is such a common pattern that there is support for it with a feature
called syntax templates, in syntax/parse/experimental/template. You would use
(?? super) to add super only if it's given, and nothing otherwise.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: Laurent
To: Konrad Hinsen
Cc: users
Ryan,
Thank you, your explanation about DrRacket's debugging and "raco make"
has really made sense to me. Also, it helped me to figure my
original problem in more specific terms; I will do a separate post
about it.
Regards,
Dmitry
On 09/25/2013 09:52 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
Are you running
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
>
>(define-syntax (foo stx)
> (syntax-parse stx
>[(_ id:id (~optional super:id) (field:id ...))
> (if (attribute super)
> #'(struct id super (field ...))
>
Hi everyone,
I am struggling with what looks like a straightforward macro issue,
but even after reading most of the documentation three times, I am
stuck.
I want to write a macro that behaves much like struct and produces a
struct form. In particular, it should accept the struct name followed
by
Hello. I need write rule for lexer for recognize comment which begin from first
column of line.
I have next regexp for comment (:seq "//" (:* (:~ CR LF))), aftrer add cr/lf to
begin of expression i write (:seq LineTerminator (:* (:or #\space TAB FF))
"//" (:* (:~ CR LF))), but this regexp -fi
22 matches
Mail list logo
