|
s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 13:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 15:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 15:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 16:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 16:32 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 17:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 18:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
John Cowan
(01 Nov 2019 21:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 21:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
John Cowan
(01 Nov 2019 23:03 UTC)
|
|
&key vs :key in the lambda list
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 23:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list
John Cowan
(01 Nov 2019 23:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 23:27 UTC)
|
|
Syntax for hygienic vs non-hygienic keywords
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 23:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: allow-other-keys
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 19:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(29 Oct 2019 16:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 16:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 17:10 UTC)
|
|
Including 177 in s7?
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 17:34 UTC)
|
> Thank you for including s7 in srfi-177. I thought you might like an
> hygenic version of that code:
Absolutely! Thank you for contributing it.
> (define-macro (keyword-lambda formals-and-keys . body)
> ((lambda (formals keyword-symbols)
> `(with-let (unlet) ; or (inlet (unlet)) -- more explicit
> (lambda* (,@formals ,@(map (lambda (sym) `(,sym #f))
> keyword-symbols))
> ,@body)))
> (split-last formals-and-keys)))
> "with-let"
> evaluates its body in the given environment. s7 has
> first-class environments, so it doesn't need define-syntax and
> its friends.
Very interesting! Does `unlet` get the global environment without any
lexical bindings from `let` expressions around the macro call site, and
that's why it's guaranteed to get the standard definition of `lambda*`?
In that case, how does `body` get access to variables in a closure
around the keyword lambda:
(let ((base 123))
(keyword-lambda ((offset))
(+ base (or offset 0))))
> I think the keyword-call macro is already hygienic.
That's my impression too since the macro doesn't add any of its own
symbols to the expansion; it only adds keywords.
> Here are tests, similar to yours:
>
> (define (writeln x) (write x) (newline))
>
> (let ((lambda* gcd)
> (list abs)
> (a 321)
> (split-last 42)
> (cond if))
> (define y (keyword-lambda (a b (c d)) (list a b c d)))
> (writeln (y 1 2))
> (writeln (keyword-call y 1 2 ()))
> (writeln (keyword-call y 1 2 (c 3)))
> (writeln (keyword-call y 1 2 (d 4 c 3))))
>
> (set! list abs)
>
> (define z (keyword-lambda (a b (c d)) (list a b c d)))
> (writeln (z 1 2))
> (writeln (keyword-call z 1 2 ()))
> (writeln (keyword-call z 1 2 (c 3)))
> (writeln (keyword-call z 1 2 (d 4 c 3))))
Thanks a lot! I don't have Docker set up right now, but I'll run these
before submitting the next draft of the SRFI.
Did you know we have a Docker container for s7 at
<https://github.com/weinholt/scheme-docker/tree/s7>? Try `docker run -it
weinholt/s7`.