[Moving to dev]
The problem is with the implementation of splicing-syntax-parameterize, which
turns the parameterization of p to #,new-tr into a TOP LEVEL define-syntax,
which does NOT expand away, leading to this borkage. This calls for an mflatt.
-Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Ian Johnson" <i...@ccs.neu.edu>
To: "J. Ian Johnson" <i...@ccs.neu.edu>
Cc: "users" <us...@racket-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:08:49 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket] When does 3D syntax get marshalled?
I found that this example does NOT work if you take the use of M out of its
expression context. Problem program:
#lang racket
(require racket/stxparam racket/splicing)
(define-syntax-parameter p #f)
(define-syntax-rule (M id body)
(splicing-let-syntax
([id
(let* ([p-tr (syntax-parameter-value #'p)]
[new-tr (λ (syn) (syntax-case syn () [(_ e) (p-tr #'(foo e))]))])
(λ (stx)
(syntax-case stx () [(_ blah)
#`(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([p #,new-tr])
(id blah))])))])
body))
(define-syntax-rule (F x) (list x))
(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([p (syntax-rules () [(_ e) e])])
(M F (F 'small-example)))
Thoughts?
-Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Ian Johnson" <i...@ccs.neu.edu>
To: "J. Ian Johnson" <i...@ccs.neu.edu>
Cc: "users" <us...@racket-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:48:55 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket] When does 3D syntax get marshalled?
Here is a concrete example that is an outline of what I do. It works.
However, in my project, when I replace F with the form that I actually defined
and mix in more for p's transformer, I get that new-tr cannot be marshalled in
the compiled code. This baffles me.
#lang racket
(module A racket
(require racket/stxparam racket/splicing)
(provide M p)
(define-syntax-parameter p #f)
(define-syntax-rule (M id body)
(splicing-let-syntax
([id
(let* ([p-tr (syntax-parameter-value #'p)]
[new-tr (λ (syn) (syntax-case syn () [(_ e) (p-tr #'(foo e
#;mix-in-more-here))]))])
(λ (stx)
(syntax-case stx () [(_ blah)
#`(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([p
#,new-tr])
(id blah #;mix-in-more-here))])))])
body)))
(module B racket
(require (submod ".." A) racket/splicing)
(define-syntax-rule (F x) (list x))
(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([p (syntax-rules () [(_ e) e])])
(printf "~a~%" (M F (F 'small-example)))))
(require 'B)
Very frustrating.
-Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Ian Johnson" <i...@ccs.neu.edu>
To: "users" <us...@racket-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:12:28 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [racket] When does 3D syntax get marshalled?
I have a fairly crazy macro that chains together syntax transformers that are
stored in syntax-parameters to get a sort of "macro mix-in" if you will. In
order to do this, I have code that looks like the following:
(define old-tr (syntax-parameter-value #'p))
(define new-tr (syntax-parser [(_ blah) (old-tr #'(modified-blah))]))
(syntax-parser [(_ macro-in) #'(syntax-parameterize ([p #,new-tr]) macro-out)])
Often this works. However, I am now putting this kind of code inside of a
let-syntax that is the product of a macro that is given the identifier to bind
in the let-syntax. The use of this macro uses the bound identifier, which (in
my head) should just use this transformer, expand away and not have to be
marshalled. There is no documentation for the term "3D syntax" so I wasn't sure
where I could read why my mental model is flawed.
So, what could be happening here that would cause the marshalling?
-Ian
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
