Hi Mikael and welcome back!
*But*, the proper implementation of syntax-toplevel? requires
> modification of psyntax.scm and adding it to the (system syntax)
> module. I didn't want to do this until I've had your comments, so the
> present patch has its own syntax-object accessors (which breaks
> abstraction and is therefore not a real solution). I should also say
> that I have not yet fixed the slib interface to the new Guile uniform
> arrays, so there's a lot of slib functionality which won't yet work.
>
> Comments? Can I add syntax-toplevel? to psyntax.scm and (system
> syntax)? Do you think it is reasonable to submit something along the
> line of guile.init.diff to slib guile.init?
>
> Best regards,
> Mikael Djurfeldt
>
I can answer with some kind of suggestion here.
in (system syntax) there is syntax-local-binding which you can use for
example as
(define-syntax f
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ x)
(call-with-values (lambda () (syntax-local-binding #'x))
(lambda (x y) (pk x) (pk y))) #'#t))))
Then,
scheme@(guile-user) [1]> (f +)
;;; (global)
;;; ((+ guile-user))
And,
scheme@(guile-user) [1]> (let ((s 1)) (f s))
;;; (lexical)
;;; (s-490)
(let ((s 1)) (define-syntax g (lambda (x) #'#f)) (f g))
;;; (displaced-lexical)
;;; (#f)
I'm not sure what exactly syntax-toplevel? does, but can you base it on
syntax-local-binding?
And if not is it possible to change syntax-local-binding so that you can
use it?
Regards
Stefan
