Oh: one other gotcha to watch out for. When Racket compiles a file to .zo,
it discards source location information in syntax object templates. This
means that these trick also won't work in that case. It is possible to
preserve this syntax location information.
... long story short: various things
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I've written three little examples [...]
Thanks, Robby, this is an enormous help. I'll play with these and see
what can be done.
Lindsey
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
I've written three little examples, extracted from the macro you pointed us
to. The first just reproduces the problem you're seeing, I expect. Note
that if you reverse the "a ..." and the "x" line, you don't get an error
anymore, but you do get strange output. This is because of the interaction
bet
Hi, Racketeers,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> One thing to watch out for, tho, is that redex uses source location
> information to typeset grammars and when macros are involved, the source
> locations (naturally) get mixed up. Since a macro can do arbitrary
> computation
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Lindsey Kuper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>> So, I think that you could use _Racket_'s syntax system to compute
>> the grammar. This is quite different from extending a base grammar
>> with new features or value clauses but
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Lindsey Kuper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
> >
> > Lindsey, in your case, I believe the 'rabbit hole' can be avoided.
> >
> > From what I understand each family in lambdaLVar is (almost) uniformly
> > generated from a gramm
On Apr 4, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Lindsey Kuper wrote:
> lambdaLVar is a minimal substrate for LVars, but it's not
> too pleasant to write programs in (although the #lang decoupling could
> help).
That's why I proposed a #lang lambdaLVar in the first place.
You might be able to get all of Racket's i
On Apr 4, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Lindsey Kuper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> Lindsey, in your case, I believe the 'rabbit hole' can be avoided.
>>
>> From what I understand each family in lambdaLVar is (almost) uniformly
>> generated from a grammar 'fun
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David Van Horn wrote:
> On 4/4/13 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> On an unrelated note, you may wish to experiment with lambdaLVar
>> as a #lang so that you can write programs. Since you seem to be
>> designing a PL, I consider the practical evaluation as at
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Lindsey, in your case, I believe the 'rabbit hole' can be avoided.
>
> From what I understand each family in lambdaLVar is (almost) uniformly
> generated from a grammar 'functor' that receives a lattice (let's say
> one for now), compu
On 4/4/13 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
;; ---
On an unrelated note, you may wish to experiment with lambdaLVar
as a #lang so that you can write programs. Since you seem to be
designing a PL, I consider the practical evaluation as at least
as important as a reduction semantics. Just a thou
Lindsey, in your case, I believe the 'rabbit hole' can be avoided.
>From what I understand each family in lambdaLVar is (almost) uniformly
generated from a grammar 'functor' that receives a lattice (let's say
one for now), computes some grammatical clauses -- and may add some
primitive operati
Robby wrote:
Yes, David's right. The (a bit more long-term than I hoped) plan is to
essentially improve and automate parts of what you call the rabbit hole in
your stackoverflow question (as also discussed in the link David posted).
I ran into this problem in a much simpler context while teach
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
> This is a recurring issue with no current solution (as far as I know).
>
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2012-December/055488.html
Okay, thanks for the answers, David and Robby. It sounds like
transitive reinterpretation, as Da
Yes, David's right. The (a bit more long-term than I hoped) plan is to
essentially improve and automate parts of what you call the rabbit hole in
your stackoverflow question (as also discussed in the link David posted).
Robby
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
> On 4/3/13 8:
On 4/3/13 8:02 PM, Lindsey Kuper wrote:
I have a rather involved Redex question that I was originally going to
send to this list, but it got long enough that it was crying out for
hyperlinks and code formatting. So, here it is on Stack Overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15800167/plt-re
16 matches
Mail list logo
