Re: [Chicken-users] Re: matchable egg ticket #487
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:52:15AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Alan Post > wrote: > > I'm only going to get more demanding out of what I'd like match to > > do, I would like the latest version. > > I've updated matchable from the latest upstream, > which includes the fix. > Thank you Alex. I've updated my copy of the matchable egg, removed the workaround I was using to avoid triggering the bug, and after that change my regression tests all pass. -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: matchable egg ticket #487
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Alan Post wrote: > I'm only going to get more demanding out of what I'd like match to > do, I would like the latest version. I've updated matchable from the latest upstream, which includes the fix. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: matchable egg ticket #487
I'm only going to get more demanding out of what I'd like match to do, I would like the latest version. -Alan On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:17:19PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: > Fixed upstream, including http://synthcode.com/scheme/match-cond-expand.scm, > which is basically suitable for Chicken modulo the module syntax. > > Do we want the latest version for Chicken (with tree patterns and ..1), > or should I just patch this one bug? > > -- > Alex > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Alan Post > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:51:12AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Alan Post > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > I've just come across a bug in the matchable egg which I've > >> > documented in ticket #487: > >> > > >> > http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/487 > >> > > >> > A call is made to |length| even when the input isn't a list if a > >> > production contains |...|. > >> > >> Thanks, those tail-patterns are a relatively recent extension > >> and this is indeed a bug. I'll fix it ASAP. > >> > > > > I tried using |...| as something of a last resort trying to match a > > tail pattern, thinking "I wonder if the ... in the documentation is > > literal, rather than elision. I couldn't figure out any other way > > to match a tail pattern. Given that they are new, I see now I may > > have used something that wasn't documented, which clears up a > > confusion of mine. > > > > I wrote such a lengthy test case just to prove to myself that ... > > was working like I expected it to. > > > > These tail-pattern matches are a time-saver for me. In one > > particular case I have a complex set of boolean variables that I use > > to generate code, and I use match later on in the routine in order > > to determine what happened, rather than reusing the boolean > > variables to see if I made a modification. > > > > Basically, I have: > > > > if A do x, y > > if B do y, z > > if C do x, z > > > > and I mant to make sure I do x, y, or z only once, even if there are > > multiple variables set that require it. > > > > Thank you Alex! > > > > -Alan > > -- > > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi > > > > ___ > Chicken-users mailing list > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: matchable egg ticket #487
Fixed upstream, including http://synthcode.com/scheme/match-cond-expand.scm, which is basically suitable for Chicken modulo the module syntax. Do we want the latest version for Chicken (with tree patterns and ..1), or should I just patch this one bug? -- Alex On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Alan Post wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:51:12AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Alan Post >> wrote: >> > >> > I've just come across a bug in the matchable egg which I've >> > documented in ticket #487: >> > >> > http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/487 >> > >> > A call is made to |length| even when the input isn't a list if a >> > production contains |...|. >> >> Thanks, those tail-patterns are a relatively recent extension >> and this is indeed a bug. I'll fix it ASAP. >> > > I tried using |...| as something of a last resort trying to match a > tail pattern, thinking "I wonder if the ... in the documentation is > literal, rather than elision. I couldn't figure out any other way > to match a tail pattern. Given that they are new, I see now I may > have used something that wasn't documented, which clears up a > confusion of mine. > > I wrote such a lengthy test case just to prove to myself that ... > was working like I expected it to. > > These tail-pattern matches are a time-saver for me. In one > particular case I have a complex set of boolean variables that I use > to generate code, and I use match later on in the routine in order > to determine what happened, rather than reusing the boolean > variables to see if I made a modification. > > Basically, I have: > > if A do x, y > if B do y, z > if C do x, z > > and I mant to make sure I do x, y, or z only once, even if there are > multiple variables set that require it. > > Thank you Alex! > > -Alan > -- > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi > ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: matchable egg ticket #487
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:51:12AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Alan Post > wrote: > > > > I've just come across a bug in the matchable egg which I've > > documented in ticket #487: > > > > http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/487 > > > > A call is made to |length| even when the input isn't a list if a > > production contains |...|. > > Thanks, those tail-patterns are a relatively recent extension > and this is indeed a bug. I'll fix it ASAP. > I tried using |...| as something of a last resort trying to match a tail pattern, thinking "I wonder if the ... in the documentation is literal, rather than elision. I couldn't figure out any other way to match a tail pattern. Given that they are new, I see now I may have used something that wasn't documented, which clears up a confusion of mine. I wrote such a lengthy test case just to prove to myself that ... was working like I expected it to. These tail-pattern matches are a time-saver for me. In one particular case I have a complex set of boolean variables that I use to generate code, and I use match later on in the routine in order to determine what happened, rather than reusing the boolean variables to see if I made a modification. Basically, I have: if A do x, y if B do y, z if C do x, z and I mant to make sure I do x, y, or z only once, even if there are multiple variables set that require it. Thank you Alex! -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: matchable egg ticket #487
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Alan Post wrote: > > I've just come across a bug in the matchable egg which I've > documented in ticket #487: > > http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/487 > > A call is made to |length| even when the input isn't a list if a > production contains |...|. Thanks, those tail-patterns are a relatively recent extension and this is indeed a bug. I'll fix it ASAP. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
