Oh wow, thanks for the prompt update. I was in the process of trying to pick my
way through the C code to figure out how I might be able to implement it
myself, but I must admit I wasn’t getting anywhere fast. ;)
> On Jul 25, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> Yes, those uses rely on t
Yes, those uses rely on the resulting syntax not being `syntax-original?`.
I've pushed the change to `make-syntax-introducer`. Pass a true
argument to `make-syntax-introducer` to create a scope that acts like a
use-site scope (no effect on `syntax-original?`) instead of a
macro-introduction scope.
Is it relying on the resulting syntax not being `syntax-original?` though?
And even if it is, would the input syntax not be original most of the time
anyway?
On Jul 25, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think it would not matter in some cases. The original intent, though,
> was to cre
I think it would not matter in some cases. The original intent, though,
was to create a scope that's like a macro-introduction scope --- where
the result should not be considered part of the original program, and
the added scope may be the only indication of that. A grep through some
sources shows
Is there any reason not to have `make-syntax-introducer` functions preserve
`syntax-original?`-ness whenever it's given something `syntax-original?` ?
On Jul 25, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think the change to `make-syntax-introducer` is straightforward, and
> it still seems like
I think the change to `make-syntax-introducer` is straightforward, and
it still seems like the right idea, but I haven't gotten there, yet. (I
hope to catch up on many things next week.)
At Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:32:55 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
> > That makes sense in retrospect. Adding an extra scop
> That makes sense in retrospect. Adding an extra scope makes
> `syntax-original?` produce #f for everything in whole module, and that
> makes DrRacket ignore the identifiers.
>
> I think `make-syntax-introducer` should probably accept an optional
> argument to specify that the new scope should *n
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
>> At Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:20:32 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
>>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
> Slightly off-topic: I didn't notice 'original-for-check-syntax. A few
> weeks ago I had problems with a missing arrows in DrRacket, and I
> searched for 'disappeared-use and I got
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/stxprops.html?q=d
On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:20:32 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>> At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
One more thing: introducing a new scope with make-syntax-introduc
Slightly off-topic: I didn't notice 'original-for-check-syntax. A few
weeks ago I had problems with a missing arrows in DrRacket, and I
searched for 'disappeared-use and I got
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/stxprops.html?q=disappeared-use#%28idx._%28gentag._188._%28lib._scribblings%2Freferen
At Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:20:32 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
> >> One more thing: introducing a new scope with make-syntax-introducer seems
> >> to
> >> break DrRacket’s Check Syntax arr
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
>> One more thing: introducing a new scope with make-syntax-introducer seems to
>> break DrRacket’s Check Syntax arrows for the whole module.
>
> That makes sense in retrospect. Adding an
At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
> One more thing: introducing a new scope with make-syntax-introducer seems to
> break DrRacket’s Check Syntax arrows for the whole module.
That makes sense in retrospect. Adding an extra scope makes
`syntax-original?` produce #f for everythi
At Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:21:02 -0700, Alexis King wrote:
> This works:
>
>#lang curly-fn racket
>(begin-for-syntax
> (#{+} 1 2 3))
>
> This doesn’t:
>
>#lang curly-fn racket
>(require (for-meta 2 racket/base))
>(begin-for-syntax
> (begin-for-syntax
>(#{+} 1 2
One more thing: introducing a new scope with make-syntax-introducer seems to
break DrRacket’s Check Syntax arrows for the whole module. I don’t understand
exactly how DrRacket’s arrows work, but my preliminary debugging in the macro
stepper has left me a little confused.
Whether I’m using curly
I have been testing mostly using a combination of DrRacket and `raco test`.
However, with that begin-for-syntax bug fixed, I’ve determined what seems to be
the problem (and is reminiscent of a similar problem in the previous version).
This works:
#lang curly-fn racket
(begin-for-syntax
I’ve just taken the time to reimplement how my curly-fn package handles the
transformation in an attempt to make it a little less unwieldy. Specifically,
the transformation itself is now done via macro expansion rather than being
performed at read-time. This means that the curly brace syntax its
On Jul 18, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 9 May 2015 06:59:53 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> At Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:39:50 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>>
I don't think a "hygienic" reader extension works
At Sat, 9 May 2015 06:59:53 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:39:50 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 16, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think a "hygienic" reader extension works in the old expander,
> > > either. The `lambda` produce
On May 9, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 9 May 2015 10:10:12 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote:
>>
>> On May 9, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, with the current expander, adding a fresh mark on the
>>> reader-introduced identifiers makes them impossible
At Sat, 9 May 2015 10:10:12 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> > Yes, with the current expander, adding a fresh mark on the
> > reader-introduced identifiers makes them impossible to bind (except by
> > picking apart the form produced by
On May 9, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Yes, with the current expander, adding a fresh mark on the
> reader-introduced identifiers makes them impossible to bind (except by
> picking apart the form produced by `#λ...` to extract the special
> identifiers).
>
> Although that strategy d
At Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:39:50 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> > I don't think a "hygienic" reader extension works in the old expander,
> > either. The `lambda` produced by the `afl` or `rackjure` reader doesn't
> > reliably refer to th
: [racket-dev] try the new macro expander
Just for fun. Don't try this at home:
#lang racket
(define-syntax-rule (quasiquote x) (reverse 'x))
`(1 2 3 4)
Gustavo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Developers" group.
To unsubscribe
ted.
> So what is the problem?
> Jos Koot
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gus.ma...@gmail.com [mailto:gus.ma...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Gustavo
> Massaccesi
> Sent: jueves, 16 de abril de 2015 21:59
> To: Alexander D. Knauth
> Cc: Matthew Flatt; Racket Devs
> Subject
On Apr 16, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I don't think a "hygienic" reader extension works in the old expander,
> either. The `lambda` produced by the `afl` or `rackjure` reader doesn't
> reliably refer to the `lambda` from `racket/base`, because a local
> binding for `lambda` capture
On Apr 16, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Jos Koot wrote:
> But:
>
> (define quasiquote list)
> (car '`x) ; -> quasiquote as well, which is not obvious.
>
> Racket has become very far in hygienic macros.
> Is is time to think about hygienic read-tables too?
> I have no idea how to acccomplish that. Sorry.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
> Okay, but I was hoping otherwise.
If all the problems were solved then we wouldn't have anything to do, right?!
Maybe this one is for you. :)
Robby
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rack
> Jos Koot
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gus.ma...@gmail.com [mailto:gus.ma...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gustavo
> Massaccesi
> Sent: jueves, 16 de abril de 2015 21:59
> To: Alexander D. Knauth
> Cc: Matthew Flatt; Racket Devs
> Subject: Re: [racket-dev] try th
Just for fun. Don't try this at home:
#lang racket
(define-syntax-rule (quasiquote x) (reverse 'x))
`(1 2 3 4)
Gustavo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
On Apr 16, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I don't think a "hygienic" reader extension works in the old expander,
> either. The `lambda` produced by the `afl` or `rackjure` reader doesn't
> reliably refer to the `lambda` from `racket/base`, because a local
> binding for `lambda` capture
At Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:43:42 -0400, "Alexander D. Knauth" wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> > Most packages build ok using the above snapshot:
> >
> > http://next-pkg-build.racket-lang.org.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
> >
> > Several failures are "ambiguou
On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Most packages build ok using the above snapshot:
>
> http://next-pkg-build.racket-lang.org.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
>
> Several failures are "ambiguous binding" errors. That error usually
> indicates an unavoidable incompatibility
On 04/13/2015 08:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I've also updated the write-up at
>
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~mflatt/scope-sets-4/
>From scope-sets-4:
> In a macro-extensible language, expanding a use of a macro creates a
> new scope in the same way that a binding form creates a new scope.
> Start
2015-04-13 14:40 GMT+02:00 Matthew Flatt :
> The new macro expander is ready for you to try:
...
> * A macro that uses `syntax-local-get-shadower` like will have to be
>revised, and it should be revised to avoid that function. A macro
>that uses `syntax-local-make-delta-introducer` defini
I see that the `declare` macro is using `syntax-local-get-shadower` as
a way of storing information in the compile-time environment. The
`syntax-local-get-shadower` function is still the only primitive to
provide that functionality. It's an awkward primitive, and I considered
replacing it with a pr
The new macro expander is ready for you to try:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~mflatt/tmp/scope-snapshot/
What you should expect:
* If your library has no macros, or if it uses only pattern-matching
macros that don't expand to submodules or units, then it should work
with the new expander with
38 matches
Mail list logo
