-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-01-12 17:39, Mark H Weaver wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
However, my mind is not set in stone on this. Does anyone else
here agree with David? Should we defend the legitimacy of this
optimization, and ask the R7RS working
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
(define current-module
(let ((top-level (the-environment)))
(lambda () (eval '(the-environment) top-level
Some more notes about the above code (changing `eval' == `local-eval'):
* (local-eval '(the-environment) environment) is a no-op: it always
Marijn hk...@gentoo.org writes:
On 13-01-12 17:39, Mark H Weaver wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
However, my mind is not set in stone on this. Does anyone else
here agree with David? Should we defend the legitimacy of this
optimization, and ask the R7RS working group to include
I wrote:
* Also note that the real `current-module' simply accesses a fluid,
which can also be set by `set-current-module'. (Fluids are a scheme
analogue to dynamically-scoped variables in Lisp). Conceptually, it
is variable that is explicitly set by the user. It has no relation to
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
(define current-module
(let ((top-level (the-environment)))
(lambda () (eval '(the-environment) top-level
Some more notes about the above code (changing `eval' == `local-eval'):
* (local-eval
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
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Well, deciding to use my guile checkout not just for reference, I tried
./autogen.sh, ./configure and make on master.
For now, it's best to stay on the stable-2.0 branch.
That's our current focus.
I see.
CCLD
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
On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
why are these two not equal in the sense of bound-identifier=?
#(syntax-object x ((top) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage
#(x) #((m1104 top)) #(i1105))) (hygiene guile-user))
#(syntax-object x
In syntax parse the racket code stores syntax values inside structs and
then transport them
down the macro chain as argument to macros. Then when unpacking the struct
they are compared
with arguments of syntax values. I think that this is the reason. I tried
to experiment with
psyntax macro
On Mon 16 Jan 2012 22:28, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
why are these two not equal in the sense of bound-identifier=?
But that's not the right question or answer. Can you should where these
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
On Mon 16 Jan 2012 22:56, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
As you see, it's just wild west to get the racket code working.
:)
Can you give a stripped-down test case for this particular behavior?
That code is paged into my and Mark's minds right now :)
Andy
--
Hello all,
There's a problem with Guile's `eval'. It doesn't do proper tail
recursion as mandated by R5RS et al, and unfortunately we can't fix this
without changing its behavior in a potentially incompatible way.
The problem is that `eval' uses dynamic-wind to temporarily set
(current-module)
14 matches
Mail list logo
