Re: [PATCH] Possible Documentation Fix
Hi, Looks great to me! Would you mind submitting an updated patch? It's attached. Also, if you like, please add yourself to the Guile group on savannah. Let Ludo and I know when/if you've done this and we'll be happy to add you there. Let's keep up the great discussion on the list, but it's wonderfully convenient to be able to commit small patches like these there. Done. Thanks, Noah 0001-doc-ref-api-macros.texi-make-the-difference-between-.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [PATCH] Possible Documentation Fix
On Wed 02 Feb 2011 15:53, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes: Looks great to me! Would you mind submitting an updated patch? It's attached. Thanks. I added a summary line and committed it. I've added you to the Guile group. If you don't mind, please continue to post patches to the list for a little while. Try to rebase before pushing patches to the Guile repo; merge commits are OK sometimes, but we like having a nice linear history. I guess in short the thing is to keep up the excellent patch-quality that you already have! Happy hacking, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
Re: [PATCH] Possible Documentation Fix
I've added you to the Guile group. If you don't mind, please continue to post patches to the list for a little while. Try to rebase before pushing patches to the Guile repo; merge commits are OK sometimes, but we like having a nice linear history. I guess in short the thing is to keep up the excellent patch-quality that you already have! Will do, and thank you! Noah
Re: [PATCH] Possible Documentation Fix
Hi,
It is correct, but I kinda liked the explicit mention of pattern
variable environments in the original. In syntax expansion, there are
lexical variables, bound in lexical environments, and pattern variables,
bound in syntax-expansion environments. The confusion addressed by that
paragraph was to treat a lexical variable as a pattern variable.
...
Do you still think the discussion of environments is distracting?
Documentation should ulitimately be for users, and if the original text
is not useful at all, by all means we should change it.
Not distracting, it's just that I didn't understand it immediately
because it didn't explicitly say that I was defining variables in two
different sorts of environments - just that there were two different
sorts of environments. How about this language?
The reason that this one doesn't work is that there are really two
environments at work here -- the environment of pattern variables, as
bound by @code{syntax-case}, and the environment of lexical variables,
as bound by normal Scheme. The outer let form establishes a binding in
the environment of lexical variables, but the inner let form is inside
a syntax form, where only pattern variables will be substituted. Here
we need to introduce a piece of the lexical environment into the
pattern variable environment, and we can do so using
@code{syntax-case} itself:
Noah
Re: [PATCH] Possible Documentation Fix
On Mon 31 Jan 2011 20:54, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes: How about this language? Looks great to me! Would you mind submitting an updated patch? Also, if you like, please add yourself to the Guile group on savannah. Let Ludo and I know when/if you've done this and we'll be happy to add you there. Let's keep up the great discussion on the list, but it's wonderfully convenient to be able to commit small patches like these there. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
Re: [PATCH] Possible Documentation Fix
Hi Noah,
Thanks for the review and patch!
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 19:08, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Could someone who understands syntax-case better than I do please
review it for correctness?
It is correct, but I kinda liked the explicit mention of pattern
variable environments in the original. In syntax expansion, there are
lexical variables, bound in lexical environments, and pattern variables,
bound in syntax-expansion environments. The confusion addressed by that
paragraph was to treat a lexical variable as a pattern variable.
Also:
+The reason this doesn't work is that the binding of @code{'it} established in
No need to quote symbols that are in @code{}.
Do you still think the discussion of environments is distracting?
Documentation should ulitimately be for users, and if the original text
is not useful at all, by all means we should change it.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
