Right, so I need a separate metafunction for each pattern I want to negate.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I am saying to write this:
>
> (define-metafunction L
> [(not-thing pat) #false]
> [(not-thing any) #true])
>
> and then where you wrote:
>
> (where/not pat t
I am saying to write this:
(define-metafunction L
[(not-thing pat) #false]
[(not-thing any) #true])
and then where you wrote:
(where/not pat tm)
write this:
(where #true (not-thing pat))
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Sam Caldwell wrote:
>> In the meantime, consider using a metaf
> In the meantime, consider using a metafunction with an `else` clause.
This would entail fixing the pattern, right? As in, I can write a
metafunction deciding whether a term does not match a pattern, but I can't
write a metafunction taking both the term and the pattern.
I'm ok with failed matche
Unfortunately, Redex's pattern language does not currently support
`not`. It might be easy to add it, or maybe hard, or maybe impossible.
Offhand, it seems probably possible to support in the unifier and
impossible in the enumerator and not hard in the matcher.
In the meantime, consider using a me
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 6:25:07 AM UTC-7, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>
> I can think of a few approaches, such as redefining
> error-display-handler in the expanded code, but I suspect that others
> have already found better solutions to this problem. I'd be grateful for
> any pointers.
>
> Ko
See `convert-compile-time-error` and `convert-syntax-error` from the
`syntax/macro-testing` library. I should fix the docs to say that the
type of the exception can change, so they work best for testing the
contents of the exception message.
For examples, there are tests for invalid uses of sy
Take a look at convert-compile-time-error and convert-syntax-error
from syntax/macro-testing[1], which make it possible to defer syntax
errors to runtime. The docs include examples for using them with
rackunit’s check-exn form to make assertions about syntax errors.
[1]: http://docs.racket-lang.or
Hi -
Could someone point me to an example of using a test submodule and rackunit to
verify a correctly raised syntax-error in the syntax phase?
Here's an example of the kind of code I have: http://pasterack.org/pastes/82067
(Uncomment the last expression in the test submodule to see the excepti
I have a Redex judgment that I would like to specify in terms of a *failed*
pattern match. I can write this like so:
[(side-condition ,(not (redex-match? L pat (term tm)))
--
...]
which works, but I would rather just abbreviate this
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-7, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> It might make sense for syntax-parse to offer something like Redex's
> `variable-not-otherwise-mentioned`, which would behave like you
> expected. I think it would have to be a baked-in special case, but it
> might be us
Is https://docs.racket-lang.org/gir/index.html of any use in your context?
/Jens Axel
2016-10-24 23:13 GMT+02:00 James James :
> I am trying to use the libnice C library by way of FFI but a lot of the
> libnice example C code is using macros.
>
> For example, G_OBJECT(). See:
> https://develope
I am trying to use the libnice C library by way of FFI but a lot of the
libnice example C code is using macros.
For example, G_OBJECT(). See:
https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#G-OBJECT:CAPS
It's used in Example 1 here:
https://nice.freedesktop.org/libnic
On 10/24/2016 02:15 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 1:14:56 PM UTC-7, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
[...]
1. A term like `(a <- blend)` will match the first pattern and treat
`blend` as a `remap:id`. If you don't want that to happen, there are two
ways to prevent it. One is to de
Sorry for the burned electrons; my co-founder has been having some trouble
sending to the list and I'm wondering if it's a general issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 1:14:56 PM UTC-7, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
>
> The easiest fix is to add the #:commit option to the `remap-entry`
> syntax class. Then when `remap-entry` succeeds the first time, it throws
> away the choice points it created, so the repeated pattern is never
> con
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting class of errors. As Dimitry says, you might
> be able to leave behind enough source code info when you generate
> that code, so that it looks like
>
> (define foo (if (empty? blah) (error ‘source-name “got ‘(),
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Konrad Hinsen
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>> Is it compile-time or run-time errors?
>
> Mostly module-instantiation-time errors, which are closer to run-time errors.
>
> As a simple example, consider syntactically correct DSL code that expands to
>
> (define f
Is it compile-time or run-time errors?
Mostly module-instantiation-time errors, which are closer to run-time
errors.
As a simple example, consider syntactically correct DSL code that
expands to
(define foo (first '()))
The call to first raises an exception, which is displayed without
Hi Dmitry,
Is it compile-time or run-time errors?
Mostly module-instantiation-time errors, which are closer to run-time
errors.
As a simple example, consider syntactically correct DSL code that expands to
(define foo (first '()))
The call to first raises an exception, which is displayed
Hi Masto,
You have at least one obvious syntax error in that code, which you should
probably fix before asking for help. Also, it sounds like you're asking
for help with homework, which generally defeats the point.
May I suggest that you take a real swing at it, then ask for more specific
help?
Konrad,
Is it compile-time or run-time errors?
Assuming compile-time, I would suggest an approach I took for a non-SEXP
language: call raise-syntax-error in the (custom) compiler, which runs
after parser and transforms syntax objects to other syntax objects. The
third argument of raise-syntax
Hi everyone,
I am working on a DSL embedded in Racket (for the curious, it's on
GitHub: https://github.com/khinsen/leibniz) and as I am starting to use
my DSL in practice, I wish my implementation had better error reporting.
My DSL consists of a bunch of syntax transformers that expand to Rac
22 matches
Mail list logo
