On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> >
> > I've started to list some examples of sexp-based
> > pure data languages at:
> >
> > http://community.schemewiki.org/?sexp-language
> >
> > None of these examples are macros (although some
> > prov
10 minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> I've started to list some examples of sexp-based
> pure data languages at:
>
> http://community.schemewiki.org/?sexp-language
>
> None of these examples are macros (although some
> provide convenience syntax wrappers).
I'm assuming that you don't really w
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> >
> > Not that I'm accusing you of doing this (at least in the post I'm
> > replying to) but I'm wary of such a situation occurring, so I'm not
> > going to address the rest of your post via mail. Rathe
A few minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> Not that I'm accusing you of doing this (at least in the post I'm
> replying to) but I'm wary of such a situation occurring, so I'm not
> going to address the rest of your post via mail. Rather I'll
> summarize the issues as best I see it for both sides vi
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Friday, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > I've implemented several hygienic macro systems from scratch and
> > studied several others. I program exclusively with hygienic macros,
> > and for a long time have been advocating people switch as well sinc
On Friday, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > I never thought I'd have to explain this on a Scheme or Lisp
> > related list,
>
> I never thought that I'd need to explan hygiene or its benefits
> or how
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 08:32:18 PM you wrote:
> The point is to be aware that auxiliary syntax is not a silver
> bullet, and that if you're using a macro system
> which allows it there is a place for selective raw symbol
> matching (though the macro itself must be hygienic).
> If you're just
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:48 +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > Rather, it's a type of low-level macro that looks at symbol names, and
> > how we could potentially do the same thing with high-level macros.
>
> Okay, I was holding off until now, but
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:48 +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> Rather, it's a type of low-level macro that looks at symbol names, and
> how we could potentially do the same thing with high-level macros.
Okay, I was holding off until now, but now I think I gotta say that this
has already been done and has
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > I never thought I'd have to explain this on a Scheme or Lisp related
> > list,
>
> I never thought that I'd need to explan hygiene or its benefits or how
> scope works on a Scheme related list, let alone the l
Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> > It's equivalent to writing a macro which can parse and optimize
> > literal PCRE regex strings,
>
> Absolutely, but that doesn't bother me because with
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> > It's equivalent to writing a macro which can parse and optimize
> > literal PCRE regex strings,
>
> Absolutely, but that doesn't bother me because with the above `let' I
> don't expect whatever to affect the
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
>
> > Alex wants to see symbols rather than identifiers. A macro is free to
> > interpret cons cells, numbers, strings, and so on found in its body as
> > it sees fit, so why can't it interpret symbols outside of the
Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
> This, I think, is really just a matter of degree. As much as the bodies
> of let and cond deviate from normal scheme in that they contain lists
> whose first member is not a procedure to apply to something,
At the end of the day, that only works because the syntax exp
A few minutes ago, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
>
> Well, his goal is perhaps a little higher level; he wants to write a
> macro that interprets the body of the macro invocation in a certain
> way, namely as just a datum rather than with the emotional baggage
> of Scheme source code.
See other reply.
Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> I'm not proposing an unhygienic macro, but rather a macro that can
> match identifiers by their unhygienic symbol name (e.g. via
> syntactic-closure-expr or syntax->datum).
Yes, that's what I guessed on your behalf.
> This will never break.
Obviously this depends o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/11/2013 02:29 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Here's a quick demonstration of how it gets broken. Assume that the
> macros in question want to match two keywords: `+' and `?'. The first
> is bound, the second isn't. Alex wants to write some "portab
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> Alex Shinn wrote:
> >
> > Syntactic closures would make it easy to implement unhygienic
> > parameters, but I guess that's not possible with syntax-case.
>
> This doesn't make any sense. Any macro facility is still something
> that works
Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> Ah, indeed - I forgot the parameters need to be bound globally as
> syntax parameters, and these still need to match hygienically.
No, syntax parameters are unrelated here. They're used when you want
a specific binding to have a different meaning in the context of some
macr
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
>>
>> (If so, it sounds like syntax parameters may be the solution. But at
>>> this point I'm just trying to make sure I understand the problem.)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I believe syntax-parameters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/11/2013 02:43 AM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> It really seems like your goal is explicitly unhygienic - the same
> symbol has a different meaning inside certain macros, even though the
> user didn't every bind it differently.
AIUI, Alex's goal is to h
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> (If so, it sounds like syntax parameters may be the solution. But at this
>> point I'm just trying to make sure I understand the problem.)
>>
>
> Yes, I believe syntax-parameters could be used. It would be clumsy, since
> the
> macros
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm still trying to understand the problem here, so please bear with me if
> this is incorrect.
>
> In a nutshell, this seems to be the issue: Alex wants to distribute an SRE
> library. This library uses certain symbols as syntax for
Hello,
I'm still trying to understand the problem here, so please bear with me if
this is incorrect.
In a nutshell, this seems to be the issue: Alex wants to distribute an SRE
library. This library uses certain symbols as syntax for regular
expressions. This library may analyze regular expression
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> Really, when you want to wrap macros on top of a non-macro-based DSL,
> the only solution is to use unhygienic matching. But there's no way
> to do this with syntax-rules, which is all we have in both R5RS and
> R7RS small.
>
> This is a SERIOUS problem. I'm still unaware
10 minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > The solution some suggest is just to using renaming. [...] I could
> > try to prefix the SRE identifiers consistently, e.g. `rx:' and
> > `rx?', except oops, the underlying SRE engine doesn'
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > The solution some suggest is just to using renaming. [...] I could
> > try to prefix the SRE identifiers consistently, e.g. `rx:' and
> > `rx?', except oops, the underlying SRE engine doesn't know these
> > names!
>
> If it's hygienic --
A few minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> There are basically two things you may be trying to do when matching
> an identifier - match a binding or match that identifier by name.
Identifiers have no specific names, that's the whole point of hygiene.
> So in the upcoming R7RS community, how am I to
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Sun 06 Jan 2013 19:56, Peter Bex writes:
>
> > The second form in the following returns 1 in Chibi, Chicken, Gambit,
> > MIT Scheme and Gauche:
> >
> > (define else #f)
> > (cond (else 1))
>
> Q: Why is this? A: Because all identifiers are
Just now, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> +1, except that it's even simpler than that -- there are some common
> names that are often used in multiple places as is (for example, `+'
> or `if'), no need for escapes.
(Forgot a smiley here -- obviously you'd have to be insane to have a
library define `+' an
11 hours ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> I don't actually consider this a bug. By the same token, it is
> impossible for library A to use macros from libraries B and C
> which happen to have chosen the same *primary* syntax keyword:
On Sun 06 Jan 2013 19:56, Peter Bex writes:
> The second form in the following returns 1 in Chibi, Chicken, Gambit,
> MIT Scheme and Gauche:
>
> (define else #f)
> (cond (else 1))
Q: Why is this? A: Because all identifiers are present in the initial
environment in these implementations, so "def
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 10:20:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
>
> > This looks interesting, but will require some more experimentation
> > before being generally acceptable, I think. I'm wary of things like
> > this, as it seems a lot like the unholy idea that all DSSSL-style
Peter Bex scripsit:
> This looks interesting, but will require some more experimentation
> before being generally acceptable, I think. I'm wary of things like
> this, as it seems a lot like the unholy idea that all DSSSL-style
> keywords must be bound.
Apropos that, you might want to look at Key
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
>
> > Notably, it's otherwise impossible for library A to use macros from
> > unrelated libraries B and C which happen to have chosen the same
> > keyword.
>
> I don't actually consider this a bug. By the same token, it is
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> Notably, it's otherwise impossible for library A to use macros from
> unrelated libraries B and C which happen to have chosen the same
> keyword.
I don't actually consider this a bug. By the same token, it is impossible
for library A to use macros from libraries B and C wh
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:37:18PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > Peter Bex scripsit:
> > > I think trying to catch these things is misguided. It's fine if an
> > > implementation like Racket does this to guide students, but seasoned
> > > Scheme
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:37:18PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
> > I think trying to catch these things is misguided. It's fine if an
> > implementation like Racket does this to guide students, but seasoned
> > Scheme programmers don't need this kind of hand-holding.
>
> On the
Peter Bex scripsit:
> I think trying to catch these things is misguided. It's fine if an
> implementation like Racket does this to guide students, but seasoned
> Scheme programmers don't need this kind of hand-holding.
On the contrary. The whole point of binding them by default is so that
they
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:28:09PM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
> I see that the report decided that the `_', `else', `...', etc auxiliary
> syntaxes are to be bound in (scheme base). That's probably a good
> thing. Good job. I guess they'd be bound like:
>
> (define-syntax else (syntax-rules ())
Andy Wingo scripsit:
> (define-syntax else (syntax-rules ())
It would be just as good or even better to say
(define-syntax else
(syntax-rules ()
((else expr ...) (syntax-error "bad use of else"
IMHO it is a great mistake to specify via code, as people take the code
to be the One Tru
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> I see that the report decided that the `_', `else', `...', etc auxiliary
> syntaxes are to be bound in (scheme base). That's probably a good
> thing. Good job. I guess they'd be bound like:
>
> (define-syntax else (syntax-rules ())
>
> Does
I see that the report decided that the `_', `else', `...', etc auxiliary
syntaxes are to be bound in (scheme base). That's probably a good
thing. Good job. I guess they'd be bound like:
(define-syntax else (syntax-rules ())
Does that definition need to go in the report, along with the defini
43 matches
Mail list logo
