Hi all,
Recently I was using the `stx-car` function from `syntax/stx`. At some
point, I had called it on a non-syntax pair and the error message came
from `car`, which is used inside the implementation of `stx-car`.
I thought it would be nice to add contracts in `syntax/stx` for better
error mess
At Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:12:05 -0400,
Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> * for consistency with the rest of the language, `stx-car` and
> friends would be renamed to use the `syntax-` prefix instead of
> `stx-`.
+1
I always get these names wrong.
> * the name of the library is also consistent w
On 2012-06-15 15:12:05 -0400, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> I've attached a patch that implements this. Any comments?
Just realized after I sent it that I'd change two things in the patch:
* `syntax-null?`, `syntax-pair?`, `syntax-list?` would be defined
using `procedure-rename` to get better cont
Can we get syntax-first and syntax-rest while you're at it? (I looked for these
just a couple of days ago, and like Vincent, I got the stx- wrong)
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
On 06/15/2012 01:12 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
Hi all,
Recently I was using the `stx-car` function from `syntax/stx`. At some
point, I had called it on a non-syntax pair and the error message came
from `car`, which is used inside the implementation of `stx-car`.
I thought it would be nice to add
At Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:09:15 -0600,
Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> The 'stx-*' functions work on values that aren't syntax objects, so
> renaming them to 'syntax-*' would be misleading.
Given the name, I would have thought they only worked on syntax
objects.
> Roughly,
>
>stx = syntax | null | (co
On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
>>
>> Roughly,
>>
>> stx = syntax | null | (cons syntax stx)
>
> I had no idea that was the case. The name certainly does not suggest
> that. The fact that the metavariable for syntax objects is `stx' also
> does not help.
>
> In which ca
On 06/15/2012 03:25 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
At Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:09:15 -0600,
Ryan Culpepper wrote:
The 'stx-*' functions work on values that aren't syntax objects, so
renaming them to 'syntax-*' would be misleading.
Given the name, I would have thought they only worked on syntax
objects
On 2012-06-15 15:09:15 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> The 'stx-*' functions work on values that aren't syntax objects, so
> renaming them to 'syntax-*' would be misleading.
Is that really so misleading though? There is already precedent for
functions which take arguments not exactly matching their
On 2012-06-15 17:39:27 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Sounds like this should be documented and possibly even contracted.
The contracts I wrote in the patch do reflect this via the
`stx-pair?` predicate, FYI.
By the way, the definition of a syntax pair in the documentation is
this:
A synta
10 matches
Mail list logo
