2014-08-11 7:44 GMT+02:00 Matthew Flatt :
> At Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:01:01 +0200, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
...
>> The next part of the syntax object is:
>
> Answers below, but first a big caution: While these details have been
> the same for a while, I hope and expect the representation of syntax
> o
On 2014-08-12 12:39:57 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> B.: I don't see what you mean. Why does DrRacket know better than TR
> how to format TR types?
FWIW, if there are width limitations in the widget that DrRacket shows
the type information, DrRacket may be able to pretty-print s-expressions
better
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> A. won't work; the communication has to be things that can be
> transmitted on place channels. Currently, all of this communication is
> already position-based. Of course, it's easy to make position based
> information from a syntax object.
A. won't work; the communication has to be things that can be
transmitted on place channels. Currently, all of this communication is
already position-based. Of course, it's easy to make position based
information from a syntax object.
B.: I don't see what you mean. Why does DrRacket know better th
I think that it would work better to:
a. Associate the information with a syntax object rather than a location.
b. Provide an sexp rather than a string, so that it can be formatted
appropriately by DrRacket.
Sam
On Aug 12, 2014 12:15 PM, "Robby Findler"
wrote:
> That would be great. I think you
Maybe something like this, to make sure it is only changed by a parameterize
form?
(provide syntax-local-introduce
call-with-syntax-introducer)
(define current-syntax-introducer (make-parameter #f))
(define (syntax-local-introduce stx)
((current-syntax-introducer) stx))
(define (cal
That would be great. I think you'd just want to tell check syntax "at
this position, here is a string to show the user". Is that ok? (And
you'd put newlines in the string to format it, I guess?)
Robby
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> [rather late]
>
> Typed Racket kn
[rather late]
Typed Racket knows quite a bit about the types of expressions, not
just constants, even when type checking fails. I think we could use a
logging mechanism similar to the one that allows check syntax to work
even when type checking fails to communicate types of sub-expressions
to DrRa
+1 . Last year I was experimenting with require-tranformers and
provide-transformers. They are very weird macros, because they have to
be executed in the "wrong order" (from inside to outside, like
functions). They use a newly created syntax-mark, and to break hygiene
you must use syntax-local-requ
9 matches
Mail list logo
