Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-06 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Mark! I haven’t looked into the details, but this looks like a great initiative! However, could you add tests for the decompiler? Especially since it’s the kind of stuff that easily bitrots (I think we’ve had warnings in parts of the decompilation towers for ages.) Thanks! Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-04 Thread Andy Wingo
On Sun 04 Mar 2012 16:03, Mark H Weaver writes: Pretty nasty, but we should continue this conversation in the other thread. >>> >>> What other thread? >> >> The one about gensym names and peval. > > I don't know of any recent thread about gensym names and peval. Do you > mean the threa

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-04 Thread Mark H Weaver
Andy Wingo writes: > On Sun 04 Mar 2012 00:59, Mark H Weaver writes: > +(define compute-base-name >>> >>> Pretty nasty, but we should continue this conversation in the other >>> thread. >> >> What other thread? > > The one about gensym names and peval. I don't know of any recent thread

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-04 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi, An answer to your one question: On Sun 04 Mar 2012 00:59, Mark H Weaver writes: >>> +(define compute-base-name >> >> Pretty nasty, but we should continue this conversation in the other >> thread. > > What other thread? The one about gensym names and peval. Happy hacking, Andy -- htt

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-03 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hi Andy! Andy Wingo writes: > On Fri 02 Mar 2012 00:40, Mark H Weaver writes: > >>> Here's a significantly refactored version of my 'tree-il->scheme' >>> improvements. > > All look great to me, please push. Some time soon after you do it, > would you mind also handling the merge to master? Ex

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-03 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Mark! On Fri 02 Mar 2012 00:40, Mark H Weaver writes: >> Here's a significantly refactored version of my 'tree-il->scheme' >> improvements. All look great to me, please push. Some time soon after you do it, would you mind also handling the merge to master? Only a few small points: > +(def

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-03 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi! Thanks for the excellent patches and rationale. On Fri 02 Mar 2012 19:34, Mark H Weaver writes: > Therefore, the relevant question here is: is there ever a case where > someone is going to call 'datum->syntax' on one of these introduced > syntax objects? Certainly not in psyntax-pp.scm, wh

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-02 Thread Mark H Weaver
I wrote: > pad (within definition of 'syntax-case' core form) Actually, this one is clearly a bug on line 2454 of psyntax.scm. It should be #'pat instead of #'pad. Mark

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-02 Thread Mark H Weaver
I wrote: > The last patch is new. It minimizes the wraps of the embedded syntax > objects in psyntax-pp.scm, such that they can no longer be used as the > first argument to 'datum->syntax' but are otherwise equivalent. (The > resulting syntax-objects are the same as those returned by > 'locally-b

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-01 Thread Noah Lavine
This is great! Thanks for improving this so much. Noah On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > I wrote: >> Here's a significantly refactored version of my 'tree-il->scheme' >> improvements. > > and here are the actual patches, with the psyntax-pp.scm portions > removed.  "make -C

Re: [PATCH] tree-il->scheme improvements

2012-03-01 Thread Mark H Weaver
I wrote: > Here's a significantly refactored version of my 'tree-il->scheme' > improvements. and here are the actual patches, with the psyntax-pp.scm portions removed. "make -C module ice-9/psyntax-pp.scm.gen" to regenerate. Mark >From bcd0547d8ab602b6d94f3cba29982e037a6b7505 Mon Sep 17 0