On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:36:09 PM UTC, Alexis King wrote:
> I will say this, however: while I have developed over the years a
reasonably
> strong intuition for how Racket macros operate, when I was learning the
macro
> system for the first time, I did not find some parts of the hygiene
algo
For those interested, it turns out you can get a loose approximation of
the van Tonder system in Racket in just a few dozen lines of code.
Namely, you can write a helper that undoes the macro-introduction scope
added by the Racket macro system:
(begin-for-syntax
(define ((make-unscoped-t
Thank you to both of you for your detailed responses! I think this is
all fascinating.
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 05:18, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> 1. Yes. To me, at least :) That aspect of hygiene is triggered by a
> macro expansion step, and the macro expansion step also defines the
> boundary of its
At Sun, 4 Mar 2018 20:01:56 -0800, Alexis King wrote:
> While it’s a bit of a tangent, I’d be quite interested to finding more
> information on this alternate model of hygiene from anyone familiar with
> the tradeoffs (the SRFI that describes it does not include much in the
> way of comparisons). A
On 03/04/2018 09:40 PM, Alexis King wrote:
[... context ...]
Still, with all this context out of the way, my questions are
comparatively short:
1. Is this lack of hygiene well-known? I did not find anything in
Ryan’s dissertation that explicitly dealt with the question, but I
did
Actually, what I wrote was wrong. The key piece of information I
overlooked was the following rule:
> A binding for an identifier can only capture a reference to another
> if both were present in the source or introduced during a single
> evaluation of a syntax or quasisyntax form, with the unders
> On Mar 4, 2018, at 15:11, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> I think scope-flipping would work, but FWIW, I thought you were going
> a different direction here. The scope-flipping approach is a way to
> infer an intended scope dynamically. It sounds to me like you want
> something more static --- a way o
At Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:40:43 -0800, Alexis King wrote:
> 2. Are there some fundamental, theoretical obstacles to making a
> syntax class-like thing hygienic that I have not foreseen? Or would
> it really be as simple as performing the usual scope-flipping that
> macroexpansion alrea
> On Mar 4, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>
> Apologies in advance for both the inflammatory subject and yet another
> overly long email to this list.
I wouldn’t call this inflammatory. It might be considered a bug report.
Thanks for the thorough analysis.
Would you be in a position
Apologies in advance for both the inflammatory subject and yet another
overly long email to this list.
I think anyone who knows me knows that I love syntax/parse — I think
it’s far and away one of Racket’s most wonderful features — but I’ve
long suspected it does not respect hygiene. Consider:
10 matches
Mail list logo