Re: syntax closures
Just saw this. Right, syntactic closures is the name of a macro system by Alan Bawden and Jonathan Rees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_closures http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref/Syntactic-Closures.html#Syntactic-Closures So, it would be good to choose a different name if what you are doing is different. BTW, the sc-macro-transformer facility of MIT-scheme would be nice to have. :-) Best regards, Mikael D. On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Alex Shinn alexsh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 2. I was actually hesistant to call this srfi-72 because of trying to do what it want more than what it say's. A main trick to simulate the effect was to introduce a closure in the syntax at one point and therefore a choose the name syntax-closure not knowing that there is an already a notion of that in the wild Oh - I thought you were referring to the existing syntactic-closures. I guess it's a plausible enough name to reuse coincidentally... Carry on then :) -- Alex
Re: [PATCH] update old references in FFI doc
On Thu 14 Feb 2013 04:23, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com writes: * doc/ref/api-foreign.texi (Foreign Types): Replace references to the old foreign-bytevector and bytevector-foreign with the new procedure names using pointer. Applied and pushed. (Feel free to push small patches like this without review, if you like.) Thanks, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
Re: syntax closures
I didn't know that this was a taken name already, Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator that mix well with the current guile macro system but is not a perfect replacement (yet) I'll check it out, But srfi-72 really covers a need I have when writing macros with syntax-parse. I'll check the sc-macro-transformer out. /Stefan On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Mikael Djurfeldt mik...@djurfeldt.com wrote: Just saw this. Right, syntactic closures is the name of a macro system by Alan Bawden and Jonathan Rees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_closures http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref/Syntactic-Closures.html#Syntactic-Closures So, it would be good to choose a different name if what you are doing is different. BTW, the sc-macro-transformer facility of MIT-scheme would be nice to have. :-) Best regards, Mikael D. On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Alex Shinn alexsh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 2. I was actually hesistant to call this srfi-72 because of trying to do what it want more than what it say's. A main trick to simulate the effect was to introduce a closure in the syntax at one point and therefore a choose the name syntax-closure not knowing that there is an already a notion of that in the wild Oh - I thought you were referring to the existing syntactic-closures. I guess it's a plausible enough name to reuse coincidentally... Carry on then :) -- Alex
Re: syntax closures
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com writes: Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator [...] I'm pretty sure this is also false. One of the main points of SRFI-72 is the improved hygiene algorithm, which is quite different than psyntax in its details. Unless I'm mistaken, you have picked out only one small aspect of SRFI-72 that happens to be relevant to what you're doing. Therefore, I don't think it should be called SRFI-72 either. Mark
