Hi!
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
| It’s true that it’s annoying that the wrong binding is silently used.
| Do you think it’s common enough to justify new syntax?
Yes this highlights a comon problem when implementing racket match with #`.
Sure, but it’s not
I did miss something when trying in racket, it's a psyntax bug!
Look!
racket:
(define-for-syntax (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
(define-syntax (g x) (syntax-case x ()((_ y) #`(let ((x y)) #,(f #'x
)
(g 4)
4
In guile,
scheme@(guile-user) (define (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
scheme@(guile-user)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10-07-12 15:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
I did miss something when trying in racket, it's a psyntax bug!
I'm glad you're finally looking harder at the Racket behavior.
racket: (define-for-syntax (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
(define-syntax
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x 1]) #,stx))
(define-syntax (m stx)
(with-syntax ([zz (f
Hi,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
racket:
(define-for-syntax (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
(define-syntax (g x) (syntax-case x ()((_ y) #`(let ((x y)) #,(f #'x
)
(g 4)
4
In guile,
scheme@(guile-user) (define (f x) #`(let ((x 1)) #,x))
scheme@(guile-user)
Hi,
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu skribis:
It's natural --- but not correct --- to think that #` is responsible
for hygiene, in which case `(f #'x)' should keep the given `x' separate
from the `let'-bound `x' in the result.
[...]
If you change the example to
#lang racket
samth made a pointer to
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-72/srfi-72.html
It does not look like guile racket etc. have implemented this yet.
Am I wrong?
This is precisely what I'm after!
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu
At Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:51:57 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x
On 07/10/2012 10:51 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
20 minutes ago, Marijn wrote:
It seems to me that both these results cannot be correct
simultaneously, but I'll await the experts' opinion on that.
This does look weird:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax (f stx) #`(let ([x 1]) #,stx))
An hour and a half ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
It's natural --- but not correct --- to think that #` is responsible
for hygiene, in which case `(f #'x)' should keep the given `x'
separate from the `let'-bound `x' in the result.
Instead, hygiene is the responsibility of macro invocation, and
Hi,
I have thought about what abstraction is needed to be supported by psyntax
in order to implement srfi-72.
Consider macro expansion of code #'C, ideally we would like to write the
expansion as E#'C with E an expansion operator. For two
expansion operators E,F we would expect to support this
11 matches
Mail list logo
