> On Oct 21, 2017, at 10:51 AM, Konrad Hinsen
> wrote:
>
> Matthias,
>
>> Yes, on rare occasions, Racket programmers need to use the FFI
>> to link in C libraries, C developers need to include ASM, and
>> so on. But when we can, we should really stick to high-level
>> linguistic constructs
Matthias,
> Yes, on rare occasions, Racket programmers need to use the FFI
> to link in C libraries, C developers need to include ASM, and
> so on. But when we can, we should really stick to high-level
> linguistic constructs when possible and available, especially
> when they provide a safer
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 9:09 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>
> These looks interesting, thanks! I'll have a closer look later.
> I guess that some people would object to making all-upper-case a
> semantic marker, but in terms of readability this looks nice.
BTW I got some of those ideas from `sweet-m
Matthew,
> If your goal is readable code, why not add some sugar?
That's a perfectly good solution.
> More broadly, it feels like there's plenty of room for new
> macro-definition and syntax-processing forms that suit different
> ergonomic needs: readability, automatic error messages, debugging,
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Konrad Hinsen
> wrote:
>
> Matthias,
>
>> Please search my post for ‘hygiene’. I didn’t mention the word. Off —
>> Matthias
>
> Oops, you are right, sorry. Your example used "let", which is also what
> everybody used for discussing hygiene, so I jumped to conc
Matthias,
> Please search my post for ‘hygiene’. I didn’t mention the word. Off — Matthias
Oops, you are right, sorry. Your example used "let", which is also what
everybody used for discussing hygiene, so I jumped to conclusions.
Your argument is that pattern matching works at a higher level of
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:53 AM, Konrad Hinsen
> wrote:
>
> I needed to remove the first
> element and add it in front of the others. On a plain list, I could do
> this half asleep. But with the list wrapped in a syntax object, even
> after considerable thought I am not sure what the best approa
Please search my post for ‘hygiene’. I didn’t mention the word. Off — Matthias
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 3:53 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>
> Matthias,
>
>> It’s quite doable but I think this misses the point
>
> I see that I haven't made my point clearly enough (if at all). I
> certainly don't w
This old post explains my rationale:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2014-March/061899.html
(Update: The only reason I didn't also kill off `syntax-case` at the
time was that the only documentation for `syntax-parse` was imposing,
and people could find gentler tutorials for `syntax-
Konrad Hinsen wrote on 10/18/2017 03:53 AM:
I think what we’re really seeing here is that backwards compatibility
sometimes smothers elegant solutions. I firmly believe that in this
case we should simply throw out syntax-rules and syntax-case
A very good idea. At least throw it out from the tut
Matthias,
> It’s quite doable but I think this misses the point
I see that I haven't made my point clearly enough (if at all). I
certainly don't want to go back to unhygienic macros without error
checking.
What I do want to go back to is doing simple manipulations of syntax
objects using familia
> On Oct 17, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>
>
> I agree that it would be nice to have a better introduction to Racket’s
> macro-writing facilities that starts with basics and scales to advanced
> topics (the syntax-rules/syntax-case/syntax-parse duplicity is
> confusing, and a lot of us
I’ve noticed that the Racket macro system seems to have a reputation for
being impenetrably complicated, which I do not fully understand. Hackett
has, indeed, exposed a great deal of complexity, but Hackett is not an
ordinary macro, and I found writing macros with syntax/parse to be quite
pleasant
> On Oct 17, 2017, at 2:36 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2017 23:11, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>> Lisp macros are easier than Racket’s in the same way that it
>> was so much easier to write procedures in ASM than in Pascal.
>
> Having used both, I fully agree, but I also wonder if it
Hi all,
This is a bit difficult to explain, so bear with me.
I have a very simple macro which generates a runtime call to a normal
function. The macro is so the arguments can be [more or less] free
form expressions - the runtime function is because the computations
are not simple and some of the
15 matches
Mail list logo
