of the bound identifiers, for the
record printer, we could. If at some point we decided that was a bad
idea, we change the record printer, and ignore those new fields.
That's the other thing: we are free to change the runtime, within the
local-eval module, to do what we like. You won't ever get an old
patches. I've manually removed the parts that
patch psyntax-pp.scm, to not hurt our eyeballs :)
From 68673f7507736f9a39d2d1eac9ef2a9ad1fd80dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:39:44 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] add syntax-locally-bound-identifiers
...)
(filter (lambda (x)
(eq? (syntax-local-binding x)
'lexical))
(syntax-locally-bound-identifiers
#'scope
#'(list (cons 'id id) ...))
(let* ((x 10) (x 20)) (lexicals
Hi Andy,
There's another thing that really should be fixed, for the sake of
preserving our ability to change the implementation `local-eval' in the
future.
Since (the-environment) can be included in code compiled to disk, the
lexical environment objects that it returns are effectively now
Hello,
Here are a couple of patches. The first implements a new helper,
syntax-locally-bound-identifiers, documented thusly:
-- Scheme Procedure: syntax-locally-bound-identifiers id
Return a list of identifiers that were visible lexically when the
identifier ID was created, in order
-bound-identifiers
* module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (syntax-locally-bound-identifiers): Declare
variable.
* module/ice-9/psyntax.scm: Add locally-bound-identifiers helper, and
define syntax-locally-bound-identifiers.
* doc/ref/api-macros.texi: Document the new procedure.
---
doc/ref/api-macros.texi
()
+ (analyze-identifiers
+(syntax-locally-bound-identifiers #'scope)))
+ (lambda (capture formals wrappers patterns)
+ (define (wrap-expression x)
+ (let lp ((x x) (wrappers wrappers))
+ (if (null? wrappers
There's another thing that really should be fixed, for the sake of
preserving our ability to change the implementation `local-eval' in the
future.
Since (the-environment) can be included in code compiled to disk, the
lexical environment objects that it returns are effectively now part of
our ABI.
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
call
Yes!
see attachement!
/Stefan
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
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
: they come from the code itself. They are input the macro,
and as such need an anti-mark.
The anti-mark will be stripped from the expansion when the transformer
that called `bound-identifiers' returns.
Does this mean that `bound-identifiers' will not function properly when
used outside
.
The anti-mark will be stripped from the expansion when the transformer
that called `bound-identifiers' returns.
Does this mean that `bound-identifiers' will not function properly when
used outside of a macro? What about if it's used within a macro that
was generated by another macro (or things
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
it is partially apt?)
Now, specific commentary.
How about something like (bound-identifiers #'here)?
scheme@(guile-user) (bound-identifiers #'here)
$5 = ()
scheme@(guile-user) (let ((x 10)) (bound-identifiers #'here))
$6 = (#(syntax-object x ((#f top) shift #(ribcage #(x) #((top)) #(i176
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
--
-check list? ls 'generate-temporaries)
--
1.7.8.3
From 2c3da44320019453115811af386febaa7eb241c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:39:44 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] add bound-identifiers
* module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (bound-identifiers): Declare variable
-identifiers
* module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (bound-identifiers): Declare variable.
* module/ice-9/psyntax.scm: Add all-bound-identifiers helper, and define
bound-identifiers. The identifiers are anti-marked so that syntax
transformers can introduce them, as-is.
---
module/ice-9/boot-9.scm |1
20 matches
Mail list logo
