Is A[e_1 & e_2] = A[e_1] meta& A[e_2]
compositional? How about A[e_1 & e_2]env = A[e_1]env meta& A[e_2]env or A[e_1 & e_2]env k = A[e_1]env (\x_1. A[e_2]env (\x_2. k (x_1 meta& x_2))) or A[e_1 & e_2]env k s = A[e_1]env (\x_1s_1. A[e_2]env (\x_2 s_2. k (x_1 meta& x_2) s_?) s_1 etc On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Don Blaheta wrote: > How about "noncompositional"? This word and its opposite have fairly > technical linguistic meanings. A "compositional" phrase (= expression) > is one whose meaning can be (correctly) inferred only by knowing the > meanings of their parts and the semantic rule associated with the syntax > form of the expression. So an expression like "a red apple" means > precisely what you would expect if you knew the meaning of "a", "red", > and "apple", and knew how to combine a determinative, an adjective, and > a noun into a noun phrase. > > It's not a perfect match. Single-word anaphor (like "it") wouldn't > normally be called noncompositional because there's nothing to compose > there---the word just has a complex meaning. And in natural language > there's no analogue at all to the more complex things that macros can > do. But to the extent that a hygienic macro system tries to make it > difficult (or impossible) to write macros that capture values, and a lot > of people informally use the term "unhygienic macro" to refer to "macros > that hygienic macro systems try to prevent", the core thing that's being > prevented is essentially noncompositionality. > > To turn it around, if I hand you a compositional expression, I also hand > you the syntax rule and the values of all evaluable sub-expressions, > then you can 100% reliably hand back the value of the overall > expression, and this seems to be the core desideratum when people start > talking about hygienic macro system. > > -- > -=-Don blaheta-=-dblah...@monm.edu-=-=-<http://www.monmsci.net/~dblaheta/>-=- > "The "melting pot" theory works in some areas in the larger cities. The > "salad bowl" theory works rather well for other towns and cities. But I > propose a third theory that covers vast areas of the US. The "child's plate" > theory. In this theory all of the foods are separated into their own groups > and if the ketchup touches the green beans all hell breaks loose." > --Brian Pyle > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev