Would it work to have your code expand into uses of with-unquote-rewriter that chained things together?
Alternatively, I wouldn't mind if something like that were folded into Redex itself and with-unquote-rewriters left as part of the public API for backwards compatibility reasons. And one other thought: I generally have discouraged the use of unquote rewriters in favor of writing little meta-functions (whose body uses unquote) and then using compound rewriters to adjust the metafunction calls. Does that work well in your use cases? Robby On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Matias Eyzaguirre <[email protected]> wrote: > To get rid of racket expressions that have been embedded in metafunctions and > reduction relations, you use `with-unquote-rewriter`, but you can currently > only have one rewriter active at a time (as underneath it's a single > parameter that holds a function). > > I've been writing a little library to make working with rewriters a little > more friendly, I expose a rewriter stack that you can push and pop atomic and > compound rewriters to. I've been thinking about how best to add support for > unquote rewriters, but I'm stumped. > > One possibility that occurred to me was to have pushing an unquote rewriter > procedure RW onto the stack just set the current unquote rewriter to a > function that calls RW on the lw in question, and if RW produces an lw where > the unq? field is true, then that is the result, otherwise use the previous > unquote rewriter (thus rewriters that don't want to make a change pass > responsibility up the stack). Other than the fact that this could get rather > slow when the unquote-rewriter stack gets really deep, redex currently > doesn't publicly export the current-unquote-rewriter parameter. Would it be > possible to make that change? > > In the meantime I suppose I shall make my own parameter for keeping track of > unquote-rewriters, though this has the disadvantage of not knowing anything > about unquote-rewriters set with the with-unquote-rewriter macro. > > Another thought that would require more effort, why is there only ever a > single unquote-rewriter at a time? compound-rewriters and atomic-rewriters > both have a table, allowing multiple rewriters to be layered on top of each > other? > > Anyway thanks, > Matias Eyzagurre. > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
