On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dupéron Georges
wrote:
> * I'm not 100% sure if #%stratified-body, #%plain-module-begin and
> #%printing-module-begin can be overridden in a useful way or not.
`#%stratified-body` is a way to get an older kind of internal
definition context, useful for implementi
Thanks, that's very informative!
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dupéron Georges <
jahvascriptman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le vendredi 3 février 2017 11:28:47 UTC+1, Laurent Orseau a écrit :
> > I see. So basically all #% things are extension points?
> > The list for the racket language:
> >
> > h
Le vendredi 3 février 2017 11:28:47 UTC+1, Laurent Orseau a écrit :
> I see. So basically all #% things are extension points?
> The list for the racket language:
>
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/search/index.html?q=%23%25%20L%3Aracket
I think #% just means "low-level".
* #%declare, #%expression,
I see. So basically all #% things are extension points?
The list for the racket language:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/search/index.html?q=%23%25%20L%3Aracket
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Dupéron Georges <
jahvascriptman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le vendredi 3 février 2017 10:56:10 UTC+1, Laurent
Le vendredi 3 février 2017 10:56:10 UTC+1, Laurent Orseau a écrit :
> Btw, with "Macro Hiding: Disabled" we can see that after foo is turned into
> #'1 (printed '1' in the macro stepper), then the 1 is 'tagged' with (#%datum
> . 1) and then right after that turned into (quote 1). Is the tagging s
Very nice example, thanks Georges.
Btw, with "Macro Hiding: Disabled" we can see that after foo is turned into
#'1 (printed '1' in the macro stepper), then the 1 is 'tagged' with
(#%datum . 1) and then right after that turned into (quote 1). Is the
tagging step necessary for numbers?
On Fri, Feb
PS: a nice example to try in the macro stepper, to see the evaluation order:
#lang racket
(define-syntax (foo stx) #'1)
(define-syntax (bar stx) #'foo)
(let ()
bar
(let ()
bar
(let ()
bar
bar)
(#%expression bar)
bar)
(+ bar bar)
bar)
--
You received this mess
Le lundi 30 janvier 2017 06:25:29 UTC+1, Matias Eyzaguirre a écrit :
> Nice, thanks! I wasn’t aware of that. so macros are expanded in the order
> that the reader reads them, not in so called evaluation order.
>From experience, the order is outside-in, each form after the preceding one
>(except
> On 29 Jan 2017, at 11:21, Ben Greenman wrote:
>
> The third result is #f because in the third example, stx is `(annotate
> (annotate 4 2))`. So the first pattern matches and `val` is the syntax
> `(annotate 4 2)`.
>
> You can get a "strict" evaluation order by using `local-expand` inside th
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:06:30AM -0800, Matias Eyzaguirre wrote:
> Hullo all,
>
> I'm messing around with syntax properties to try to get a feel for them, but
> in one of my tests they aren't behaving the way I would expect them to.
>
> In my example the output is #f 1 #f, when I would have th
The third result is #f because in the third example, stx is `(annotate
(annotate 4 2))`. So the first pattern matches and `val` is the syntax
`(annotate 4 2)`.
You can get a "strict" evaluation order by using `local-expand` inside the
`annotate` macro. For example:
#lang racket
(define-syntax (a
Hullo all,
I'm messing around with syntax properties to try to get a feel for them, but in
one of my tests they aren't behaving the way I would expect them to.
In my example the output is #f 1 #f, when I would have thought it would be #f 1
2. Why is the third result #f and not 2?
#lang racket
12 matches
Mail list logo
