Well, as I understand it, a struct (usually? always?), #:transparent or
not, when declared, defines symbols that are meant to be visible in the
current scope, so (struct foo (a b)) defines foo #|constructor|#, foo?
#|instance-predicate|# foo-a and foo-b #|data accessors|# , that I can call
on instances:
(struct foo (a b))
(let ([my-foo (foo 42 37)]
(list (foo? my-foo)
(foo-a my-foo)
(foo-b my-foo))) ~~> '(#t 42 37)
I would like, given only the symbol foo referring to the struct type
itself, to discover (at least) the list of procedures foo?, foo-a, foo-b,
plus anything else the author of foo (the type) wants me to see.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:45 PM John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org>
wrote:
> In the text below, you refer to the “public” interface. Can I ask what you
> mean by “public” in this context?
>
> John
>
> > On Oct 29, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Brian Beckman <bc.beck...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that run time will be the most plausible use case. I may write
> macros that refer to struct-procedure names at macro-writing time, but I
> don't expect to invoke the struct procedures at macro-expansion time. My
> primary issue is "discoverability:" how can I find out the interface of any
> struct?
> >
> > On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 1:00:15 PM UTC-7 jackh...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > Are you intending to use the struct procedure names at compile time
> (such as in a macro) or runtime?
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 5:02:46 PM UTC-7 bc.be...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > I understand why structs are opaque, by default, but I want to discover
> the public interface of some struct type, that is, a list of the procedures
> defined by the struct.
> >
> > Here is an example. Suppose I want to find out all the procedures
> defined on an instance of the syntax struct
> >
> > #'42
> >
> > Dr. Racket shows an expander clicky that shows some formatted
> information inside the instance :
> >
> >
> >
> > Uncapitializing the names in the display reveals the interface:
> >
> > (syntax-position #'42) ~~> 790
> > (syntax-span #'42) ~~> 2
> > (syntax-original? #'42) ~~> #t
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > I want to discover those procedure names in my racket program, not
> manually by visually inspecting graphics in Dr Racket.
> >
> > I found this trick for structs that I define:
> >
> > #lang racket
> > (require (for-syntax racket/struct-info))
> > (require racket/pretty)
> >
> > (struct foo (a b))
> > (begin-for-syntax
> > (displayln
> > (extract-struct-info
> > (syntax-local-value
> > #'foo))))
> >
> > ~~>
> >
> >
> >
> > but it doesn't work for the syntax type
> >
> > (begin-for-syntax
> > (displayln
> > (extract-struct-info
> > (syntax-local-value
> > #'syntax))))
> >
> > ~~>
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd be grateful for advice and an example of how to get the interface of
> "syntax" without Dr Racket and without grovelling docs.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Racket Users" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/8e4ca03e-e276-4c42-a662-4fcf7c994387n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK2VK6tMxFH0oEq4iCgk7PW-4yJTB8xNr_b3F6GPwQS1MZVLwQ%40mail.gmail.com.
