Hello Linus!
On 8/5/22 11:42, Linus Björnstam wrote:
I wrote this, which does a tree fold over a sexp:
https://hg.sr.ht/~bjoli/megacut/browse/readme.txt?rev=tip
It is unhygienic currently, and I will probably never change because I only use
it at the repl.
The code is really just a
I wrote this, which does a tree fold over a sexp:
https://hg.sr.ht/~bjoli/megacut/browse/readme.txt?rev=tip
It is unhygienic currently, and I will probably never change because I only use
it at the repl.
The code is really just a syntax-case version of the fast and efficient flatten
On 30-07-2022 17:42, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
Does this mean, that recursive application of a macro inside a macro
is impossible? To expand to subforms being the same macro again and
this way transform a whole tree of s-expressions?
You can have recursive macros, see e.g. the let^ macro at
On 30-07-2022 22:44, Maxime Devos wrote:
"All I want to do" is to replace some placeholder (in this case )
in an arbitrary form. No matter how that form looks or how deeply it
is nested, if there are inside of it, I want to replace them. Is
this impossible?
Yes, see e.g. the
On 30-07-2022 17:42, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
[...]
But now comes the problem:
Since I want to replace all occurrences of for example and
does not need to be defined, I think I must use define-syntax, to
avoid Guile trying to evaluate the arguments to a function call. OK,
so a macro I
Hi Maxime!
On 7/28/22 12:23, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
Hello Maxime!
On 7/28/22 02:55, Maxime Devos wrote:
These macros all sound more complicated than necessary -- on the first one,
I've sent you a message with sneek:
;; By: Maxime Devos
;; This does not recurse into #(...).
;; Also,
On 7/28/22 11:48, Maxime Devos wrote:
On 28-07-2022 10:39, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
I aimed to do everything with syntax-rules, as the simplest means, but when
writing the code I have, I hit the snag, that one could not have multiple
ellipses at the same level of nesting in the patterns.
On 28-07-2022 12:23, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
I'll need to look at this and learn about eval-when
The eval-when is only required if the macro is 'run' when the module
holding the macro is compiled (to avoid some compilation failures);
often the eval-when can be dropped.
Greetings,
Maxime.
Hello Maxime!
On 7/28/22 02:55, Maxime Devos wrote:
These macros all sound more complicated than necessary -- on the first one,
I've sent you a message with sneek:
;; By: Maxime Devos
;; This does not recurse into #(...).
;; Also, such a construct does not nest well, you can't put a
On 28-07-2022 10:39, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
I aimed to do everything with syntax-rules, as the simplest means, but
when writing the code I have, I hit the snag, that one could not have
multiple ellipses at the same level of nesting in the patterns.
IIUC, you mean:
(syntax-rules ()
((foo
Hello Maxime!
Thank you for your quick response! (Mailing list saves me again! Yay!)
On 7/28/22 03:04, Maxime Devos wrote:
On 28-07-2022 01:57, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
scheme@(guile-user)> (define-syntax test
(syntax-rules (lambda)
[(_ (op args body* ...))
((test op) (test args)
On 28-07-2022 01:57, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
scheme@(guile-user)> (define-syntax test
(syntax-rules (lambda)
[(_ (op args body* ...))
((test op) (test args) (test body* ...))]
[(_ thing1 thing2 things* ...)
((test thing1) (test thing2 things* ...))]
[(_ (thing))
These macros all sound more complicated than necessary -- on the first
one, I've sent you a message with sneek:
;; By: Maxime Devos
;; This does not recurse into #(...).
;; Also, such a construct does not nest well, you can't put a
replace-result-placeholder inside a
Hello Guile Users,
I am trying to write a macro, which replaces all placeholders (in this case )
with an identifier in an arbitrarily structured expression (arbitrary nesting of
expressions). I have the following code now:
(define-syntax replace-result-placeholder
(syntax-rules (
14 matches
Mail list logo
