On Tue 17 Jan 2012 00:27, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
TBH I think this is the best thing we can do for local-eval. We
preserve flexibility for local-eval, make other experiments possible,
and the local-eval implementation is a bit more perspicacious, as the
scoping is more lexical (in
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
What if instead we implemented closure serialization somehow? Then we
would handle procedural macros too, and bound-identifiers would still be
sufficient.
Maybe that idea is a little too crazy.
Are we still talking about Scheme? The language with
Hi Andy!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
+ (cons (wrap (car symnames)
+ (anti-mark (make-wrap (car marks) subst))
* Why are you adding anti-marks here?
As the changelog noted (and a comment should have noted ;), the
identifiers are
Hi Andy!
Thanks again for working on this.
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
* Why are you adding anti-marks here?
As the changelog noted (and a comment should have noted ;), the
identifiers are anti-marked so that syntax transformers can introduce
them, as-is.
The purpose of this
Hi Mark,
On Mon 16 Jan 2012 21:36, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Thanks again for working on this.
And thank you again for all your work, and patience with my
pigheadedness.
if you insist in this foolish quest to banish `the-environment' to
sleep in the shed as a second-class
Hi Mark,
I had made some noise about preferring an implementation of local-eval
based on primitives from psyntax. But, I didn't clarify my argument by
providing the primitives. Here are some patches that provide
syntax-local-binding, as I noted in my previous mail, and also a
procedure to get
Hi Andy,
Thanks very much for heeding my call for `local-eval' in 2.0.4, and
for putting so much time into this.
For the record, I still think it's better for `the-environment' to be
implemented within psyntax as a core form. It's a fundamental syntactic
construct with clean semantics, and it
