It did. Thanks! On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Vladimir Sedach <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, I pushed a patch. Let me know if that works ok. > > Vladimir > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Daniel Gackle <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yes, that's it. Sorry for the ambiguity. I actually rely on this behavior > > in more than one place; it basically gives you #DEFINE for magic > > numbers. > > > > Thanks, > > Dan > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Vladimir Sedach <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Do you mean something like this: > >> > >> (symbol-macrolet ((x 1)) > >> (let ((blah 1)) > >> (case blah > >> (0 3) > >> (x 7) > >> (t 13)))) > >> > >> Where the key x is supposed to expand to 1? In CL that code evaluates > >> to 13, but since there's no way symbols can be used as keys I suppose > >> using symbol macros that expand to numbers makes a lot of sense. > >> > >> Let me know if the above example is the behavior you think should be > >> provided (ie the form should return 7), and I'll make a patch. > >> > >> Vladimir > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Daniel Gackle <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > Trying to upgrade to the latest PS, I have a problem with this CASE > fix: > >> > it rejects symbol macros that expand to numbers. It's quite handy to > >> > use symbol macros this way for compile-time constants, so I hope > >> > the desired behavior can be restored. > >> > > >> > Daniel > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Vladimir Sedach <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> This I would definitely call a bug. Since the position PS takes right > >> >> now is that it doesn't have symbols as run-time objects, I made the > >> >> decision to disallow them as keys in CASE clauses. Only keyword > >> >> symbols (which are translated to strings), numbers and string > literals > >> >> are allowed. > >> >> > >> >> The behavior exhibited in your case is perfectly ok JavaScript > though, > >> >> so the SWITCH special form still supports having variables and others > >> >> things as keys. > >> >> > >> >> I made a note in the reference manual (in the repo, I'll update the > >> >> version on the PS website with the next release), and also fixed some > >> >> other bugs I found in CASE and SWITCh statements. > >> >> > >> >> Thank you for bringing this issue up! > >> >> > >> >> Vladimir > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Boris Smilga <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Hello. > >> >> > > >> >> > I've noticed that Parenscript has a different semantics from Lisp > as > >> >> > regards keys of CASE clauses. Lisp assumes an implicit QUOTE in > this > >> >> > context, so that a symbol used as CASE clause key matches a > test-key > >> >> > which is EQL to the symbol, as opposed to its value. Parenscript, > on > >> >> > the other hand, translates CASE forms to switch statements where > >> >> > symbol keys are used as identifiers. E. g. > >> >> > > >> >> > (let* ((foo 'bar) (bar 'foo) (x bar)) > >> >> > (case x ((foo) 1) ((bar) 2))) > >> >> > > >> >> > translates to > >> >> > > >> >> > (function () { > >> >> > var foo = 'bar'; > >> >> > var bar = 'foo'; > >> >> > var x = bar; > >> >> > switch (x) { > >> >> > case foo: > >> >> > return 1; > >> >> > case bar: > >> >> > return 2; > >> >> > }; > >> >> > })(); > >> >> > > >> >> > Note that the former evaluates to 1, the latter to 2. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now, is this a bug, or a feature? The section on CASE in the > >> >> > Parenscript Manual is actually misleading, whatever the answer. > >> >> > > >> >> > — B. Smilga. > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > parenscript-devel mailing list > >> >> > [email protected] > >> >> > > >> >> > > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> parenscript-devel mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > parenscript-devel mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> parenscript-devel mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > parenscript-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > parenscript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel >
_______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
