It’s working, but I have no Idea how to show lexical scoping
If I have this:
(bind x)
(ref x)
It works like I want it to work.
Also for some reason this works:
(let ()
(bind x)
(void))
(ref x)
Which is good I guess in some ways, but still weird.
It’s good because it gives me a chance to define my own lexical scoping rules,
but how do I do that?
I think it has something to do with the 2 xs having the same syntax-marks, but
I’m not sure.
The problem is that I can’t make them have different syntax-marks. To do this
I think I would have to use (make-syntax-introducer) instead of
syntax-local-introduce, but for some reason that’s not working.
If I change the definition of stx-introducer from syntax-local-introduce to
(make-syntax-introducer), then it doesn’t work. I don’t really know what I’m
doing here, but I think that If I want to have different references in
different scopes point to only their own respective definitions (lexical
scoping), then I think I would have to use (make-syntax-introducer) instead of
syntax-local-introduce. But that’s not working, so then how do I do that?
#lang racket
(begin-for-syntax
(define stx-introducer syntax-local-introduce)
;; (define stx-introducer (make-syntax-introducer))
)
(define-syntax (bind stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(bind-1 id)
(let ([new-id (stx-introducer #'id)] [id.length (string-length
(symbol->string (syntax-e #'id)))])
(syntax-property #`(void)
'sub-range-binders
(list (vector new-id 0 id.length new-id 0
id.length))))]))
(define-syntax (ref stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(ref-1 id)
(syntax-property #'(void)
'disappeared-use
(list (stx-introducer #'id)))]))
(let ()
(bind x)
(void))
(ref x)
On May 25, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Yes. One approach is to expand into a program that never runs but that
> has the identifiers in the binding relationships you want check syntax
> to show. Another approach is to add properties to your program that
> tells check syntax what to draw. You can read about the second
> approach here:
>
>
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/tools/Check_Syntax.html?q=check%20syntax#%28part._.Syntax_.Properties_that_.Check_.Syntax_.Looks_.For%29
>
> Let us know if you get stuck when you try it!
>
> Robby
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
> <alexan...@knauth.org> wrote:
>> Is there any way to use syntax properties or anything like that to tell
>> DrRacket where to draw the arrows to?
>>
>> I’m trying to make my own language and I wanted to be able to have DrRacket
>> draw the arrows.
>>
>> Also is there a way to have it draw multiple arrows, so that for example it
>> would draw arrows not only to the original definition but also to all of the
>> expressions that set! it?
>>
>>
>> ____________________
>> Racket Users list:
>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
