On 12/17/2010 06:34 AM, Jim Wise wrote:
* a proper or improper list of N subpatterns with the literal `...`
symbol
occurring once or more in any position except either the first position
of any list, or the last position of an improper list.
examples:
{{{
(a ... b c)
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 01:47 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
I've posted it at http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/MatchingWise. I
removed the section on exceptions (which is still unsettled) and
changed the MUSTard. I've also removed the (rnrs match core)
library in favor of just renaming on import.
I
On 12/17/2010 12:17 AM, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 23:42 -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
For example this would be mis-parsed in an unexpected manner:
(lambda (x y) (list y x))
My definition *is* (I believe) compatible (i.e. a super-set) of traditional
lambda.
But it
One quick correction -- the (removed) (rnrs match core) library renamed
match-lambda* - lambda
while this edit renames
match-lambda. - Lambda
which will not work.
Sent from my iPhone.
Digital signature available upon request.
On Dec 17, 2010, at 1:59, John Cowan
Per Bothner p...@bothner.com writes:
Regardless:
(lambda
(pat body body ...)
(pat body body ...)
...)
is incompatible with core:lambda - i.e. it is not a super-set of traditional
lambda, and it's not just a matter of rare corner cases. That makes it
Jim Wise jw...@draga.com writes:
I'd like to propose the following revision: do away with the
one-argument special case currently known as match-lambda (this can be
easily implemented in terms of the multi-argument case, and make the
pattern matching version of lambda take one pattern and
Jim Wise jw...@draga.com writes:
For consideration, enclosed is an updated version of MatchingWise
containing this change, and removing a lingering reference to (rnrs
match core) in the introduction.
One more quick formatting fix:
== Pattern Matching ==
This is a proposal for a WG2 pattern
Jim Wise scripsit:
Enclosed is the draft I've put together for this. Let me know if you
would like me to send this to one or more of the wg or reports lists for
further comment.
I've posted it at http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/MatchingWise. I
removed the section on exceptions (which is
On 12/16/2010 10:47 PM, John Cowan wrote:
I've also removed the (rnrs match core)
library in favor of just renaming on import.
I think that misses the point - it becomes too much hassle to
manually type in the renames, so people aren't going to do it.
--
--Per Bothner
p...@bothner.com
Per Bothner scripsit:
I think that misses the point - it becomes too much hassle to
manually type in the renames, so people aren't going to do it.
Ah, but the default names are the overrides, *not* the match- forms.
Sneaky, eh?
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
Assent
Per Bothner scripsit:
Cute. But there seems to be a mistake in the definitions of lambda
and lambda* - they have the same definitions and expansions in terms
of core:lambda.
No, the former is defined as (core:lambda (id) ...) and the latter as
(core:lambda id ...). The names may well be
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
Hence my question: what is the state of pattern matching in Scheme? Are
there ideas to move this forward, or are we, the poor users, left to
live with incompatible pattern matching interfaces and implementations?
Working
Per Bothner scripsit:
To win pattern-matching really should be the default and integrated
into the language core, rather than an optional module that uses
separate keywords. E.g. there shouldn't be a difference between lambda
and match-lambda*. The latter is too verbose!
Being in the core
Jim Wise scripsit:
Are there plans to include explicit pattern matching operations, such as
Common Lisp's DESTRUCTURING-BIND or Racket's match[1]?
We don't work in terms of plans, but in terms of proposals, and right now
there are no concrete proposals. If you put together a concrete proposal
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Jim Wise scripsit:
Are there plans to include explicit pattern matching operations, such as
Common Lisp's DESTRUCTURING-BIND or Racket's match[1]?
We don't work in terms of plans, but in terms of proposals, and right now
there are no concrete
Jim Wise jw...@draga.com writes:
and derivative forms
(match-lambda (pattern body) ...)
(match-lambda* (pattern body) ...)
(match-let ((pattern expr) ...)
which are equivalent to
(lambda (x) (match x (pattern body) ...)
(lambda l (match l (pattern body)
Jim Wise scripsit:
I'd be willing to cull the list discussion as a proposal, if there seems
to be a common thread. Are there any details on what's wanted in such a
proposal? Or just the discussion on the list? Any standard formatting?
Take a look at
On 12/14/2010 06:44 AM, John Cowan wrote:
The biggest issue appears to be define. Changing define to have
the syntax:
(definepattern expression)
Why wouldn't it be (define (name .pattern)expression)? A define
without an identifier being defined doesn't make much sense to me.
I was
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Jim Wise scripsit:
I'd be willing to cull the list discussion as a proposal, if there seems
to be a common thread. Are there any details on what's wanted in such a
proposal? Or just the discussion on the list? Any standard formatting?
Take a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Per Bothner p...@bothner.com wrote:
I was thinking in terms of the patterns based on:
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/372/html/mzlib/mzlib-Z-H-27.html#node_chap_27
That documentation is very old, from December 2007. The current
documentation for `match'
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 12:39 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Per Bothner scripsit:
The (default/preferred) syntax for lambda should do pattern-matching
*without* having to use a verbose name like match-lambda*. I don't
want either of these:
(1) People learning and using Scheme having to mix 2
On 12/14/2010 09:48 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Per Bothnerp...@bothner.com wrote:
I was thinking in terms of the patterns based on:
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/372/html/mzlib/mzlib-Z-H-27.html#node_chap_27
That documentation is very old, from
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Per Bothner p...@bothner.com wrote:
On 12/14/2010 09:48 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Per Bothnerp...@bothner.com wrote:
I was thinking in terms of the patterns based on:
Per Bothner scripsit:
I.e. where (var1 var2 var3) is a valid pattern matching a 3-element list.
This syntax for patterns has the advantage that it is a generalization of
syntax-rules patterns, in addition to being natural and compact.
Ah, I see. I think that the natural extension of define
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Jim Wise scripsit:
I'd be willing to cull the list discussion as a proposal, if there seems
to be a common thread. Are there any details on what's wanted in such a
proposal? Or just the discussion on the list? Any standard formatting?
Take a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jim Wise jw...@draga.com wrote:
* R6RS case and syntax-case
`syntax-parse' by Ryan Culpepper, as described here:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/syntax/stxparse.html
and here:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/#icfp10-cf
--
sam th
sa...@ccs.neu.edu
Per Bothner scripsit:
There is SRFI 16's case-lambda, but it's pretty simple.
Case-lambda is on the table for WG1, and I expect it will most likely pass.
That means that if R7RS supports optional arguments then the following
(or something functionally equivalent) should be a valid pattern:
If we did this, we should also allow GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMBDA. In fact,
it would be preferable, I think, as it has a standard HTML escape: lambda;
In my Emacs v23 (Ubuntu Linux), this letter resolved to l (as did the
*LAMDA version), not something like 흺 .
How did you try to input it?
In
On 12/12/2010 04:09 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Working Group 2 has decided that an optional pattern matching module
will be part of R7RS.
To win pattern-matching really should be the default and integrated into
the language core, rather than an optional module that uses separate
keywords. E.g.
Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
Hence my question: what is the state of pattern matching in Scheme? Are
there ideas to move this forward, or are we, the poor users, left to
live with incompatible pattern matching interfaces and implementations?
Working Group 2 has decided that an optional pattern
30 matches
Mail list logo
