On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
>> I'll be releasing an update to my "outer" tutorial shortly, but
>> would like to double check that the result I'm aiming toward is of
>> good quality before I finish the text.
>
> I still think that the s
A few minutes ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I'll be releasing an update to my "outer" tutorial shortly, but
> would like to double check that the result I'm aiming toward is of
> good quality before I finish the text.
I still think that the splicing stuff is unnecessarily(?) complicating
things... (I'm
I'll be releasing an update to my "outer" tutorial shortly, but would
like to double check that the result I'm aiming toward is of good
quality before I finish the text.
I've ended up with:
https://github.com/dyoo/outer-tutorial/blob/master/outer.rkt
which takes components of Eli's solution
Hi Brian,
I wanted to revisit this! Reading back your comments and Eli's, I
think I see now that syntax-parameterize is not what I want, because
it doesn't respect lexical boundaries. The whole point of the 'outer'
I'm trying to define is to respect those boundaries, even as I'm
drilling holes in
On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Danny Yoo wrote:
>> This problem still remains in your newest version of `def', since as a user
>> of `m' I still need to know that it uses `def' internally.
>
> Oh! I thought I designed the revised outer so that it should be
> agnostic to how 'm' works.
Sorry abo
> This problem still remains in your newest version of `def', since as a user
> of `m' I still need to know that it uses `def' internally.
Oh! I thought I designed the revised outer so that it should be
agnostic to how 'm' works.
Let me double check this to be more sure about that assumption.
Just now, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> >> Is there a way to make (outer (outer x)) do the right thing while
> >> still using syntax parameters?
> >
> > That's an obvious bait, right?
> > [...]
>
> Maybe I'm still a little groggy this morning, bu
On Apr 11, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> Is there a way to make (outer (outer x)) do the right thing while still
>> using syntax parameters?
>
> That's an obvious bait, right?
>
> (define-syntax (def stx)
>(syntax-case stx ()
> [(_ (name args ...) body ...)
> #`(defin
10 minutes ago, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
> > Yikes. Yes, that's unexpected. Nice catch!
>
> Hi Danny,
>
> I confess that I had hidden motives in raising this scenario.
Heh, this came in as I wrote the other reply.
> What happened in this cas
Yesterday, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
>
> I find it interesting that you used a separate syntax parameter
> instead of just making `outer' the syntax parameter. I think that
> the semantics are the same with either strategy, but for some reason
> the latter seems more obvious to me - perhaps because
On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> Yikes. Yes, that's unexpected. Nice catch!
Hi Danny,
I confess that I had hidden motives in raising this scenario. What happened in
this case is most definitely intended behavior for syntax parameters. This
particular kind of weirdness is exact
> Is there a way to make (outer (outer x)) do the right thing while still
> using syntax parameters?
>
> Do you consider this behavior to be surprising? Would you expect as the
> author of `m' that your macro affects the behavior of `outer'?
>
> (define-syntax m
> (syntax-rules ()
> ((_ val)
>
On 04/10/2012 03:33 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here's a tutorial that shows how to use Racket macros to create a
lexical-scoping hole.
http://hashcollision.org/outer-tutorial/index.html
The tutorial is intended to be an introduction to Racket's macro system as well.
Any suggestio
Hi everyone,
Here's a tutorial that shows how to use Racket macros to create a
lexical-scoping hole.
http://hashcollision.org/outer-tutorial/index.html
The tutorial is intended to be an introduction to Racket's macro system as well.
Any suggestions and comments would be greatly appreciated
14 matches
Mail list logo
