Syntax errors are a problem because there is no fixed syntax.
(And I am sorry I don't have the energy to explain this problem the umpteeth
time.)
On Nov 17, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> Syntax has dependencies. In (X . ARGS), the interpretation of ARGS depends on
> X. So X sho
Syntax has dependencies. In (X . ARGS), the interpretation of ARGS
depends on X. So X should be validated* before ARGS is interpreted. Most
macros either obey this principle automatically or have relatively
benign violations**, but #%app is a bit special.
I agree with Carl.
Ryan
* Probably X
So far, I'm with Carl on this one.
But perhaps you can explain what the bigger problem is? I will easily
admit that I fall into this trap of seeing only the small problem.
Robby
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> It's not clear to me that this is a symptom, or that you have
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> It's not clear to me that this is a symptom, or that you have
> identified the right fundamental problem. Function application is
> another syntax -- I don't just mean we implement it as one, it is one.
> We allow it to vary with language j
It's not clear to me that this is a symptom, or that you have
identified the right fundamental problem. Function application is
another syntax -- I don't just mean we implement it as one, it is one.
We allow it to vary with language just like any other macro. The
issue here is that part of #%app
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Isn't the true problem that we pretend uniformity of syntax and values? In
> this case, we specifically pretend that functions and syntaxes may consume
> the same kind of keyword-labeled arguments.
I don't think that this second sen
That's a fix for the symptom, and it occurred to me too.
Let's try to look at the large picture, too, instead of
just looking for bandaids for symptoms.
On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> Personally I would like to see the error here be that
> define-struct/contract is not b
Personally I would like to see the error here be that
define-struct/contract is not bound. If the order of either top level
expansion or #%app worked slightly differently, we could get that
error first and all would be clear.
Carl Eastlund
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wro
Isn't the true problem that we pretend uniformity of syntax and values? In this
case, we specifically pretend that functions and syntaxes may consume the same
kind of keyword-labeled arguments. Except that when you make a small mistake,
the brittleness of this arrangement shows up and you get W
I found this error message confusing. The problem is I forgot to require
racket/contract.
#lang racket/base
(define-struct/contract foo ([a any/c]) #:transparent)
>
application: missing argument expression after keyword at: #:transparent
in: (#%app define-struct/contract foo ((a any/c)) #:transp
10 matches
Mail list logo
