Re: Suggestions and EIOD update campbell@xxxxxx 10 Nov 2004 14:27 UTC
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Alcoholic Petrofsky wrote: > The eiod-based reference implementation says: > > ;; eiod.scm: eval-in-one-define > ;; $Id: eiod.scm,v 1.2 2004/11/07 17:32:23 campbell Exp $ > > If you want to add your own version information, that's fine, but > please do not put anything out on the net that only identifies itself > as eiod 1.2, unless it is the petrofsky.org eiod 1.2, which is dated > 2002/05/21 and is quite different from what you have there. I suggest > you add something like this: > > ;; The rest of this file is eiod.scm version 1.16 from > ;; http://petrofsky.org/src Whoa! Sorry, I didn't even notice the RCS tag junk when I committed it to srfi.schemers.org -- the updating of it was automatic and completely beyond my notice. I'll fix that immediately. Please make a similar change in alexpander (also, I suggest you fetch > a more recent version of alexpander). ...and that too. > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote in message > <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> > (which doesn't seem to have made it to schemers.org yet, but of which > I received a carbon copy) Yes, my SRFI subscriptions are *really* screwed up. I pestered the editors about it a little while ago, but to very little noticeable effect. I never remember which SRFI lists I'm still subscribed to, so I just Cc them anyway and hope someone notices the email. > > > ... The macro system must make the usual hygienic arrangements > > > to preserve the lexical scoping of these bindings. > > > > OK, I've changed the text to look a bit more like this. > > Draft 1.3 says: > > ... The macro system implementation must make usual hygienic > arrangements to preserve & protect the lexical scope of these > bindings. > > I think "usual" needs to be "the usual" or "its usual". Perhaps > better would be "... must make the hygienic arrangements described in > r5rs section 4.3 to preserve ...". OK, I shall specify that further. > > > Here's an example you could use, whose result depends on whether or > > > not F inserts the binding for ::: hygienicly: > > > > > > (let-syntax > > > ((f (syntax-rules () > > > ((f e) > > > (let-syntax > > > ((g (syntax-rules ::: () > > > ((g (x e) (y :::)) > > > '((x) e (y) :::))))) > > > (g (1 2) (3 4))))))) > > > (f :::)) > > > => ((1) 2 (3) (4)) [ rather than ((1) (2) (3) (4)) ] > > > > I have added this example. > > You added it like this: > > (let-syntax > ((f (syntax-rules () > ((f ?e) > (let-syntax > ((g (syntax-rules ::: () > ((g (??x ?e) (??y :::)) > '((??x) ?e (??y :::)))))) > (g (1 2) (3 4))))))) > (f :::)) > > ; => ((1) 2 (3 4)), if hygienic rules of ellipsis identifiers are > ; correctly implemented, not ((1) (2) (3) (4)) > > You need to change that to "not ((1) (2) (3 4))", or (preferably) to > follow my example more closely and change '((??x) ?e (??y :::)) to > '((??x) ?e (??y) :::) and change "=> ((1) 2 (3 4))" to "=> ((1) 2 (3) > (4))". Whoops. I suspect that the opium I consumed earlier today for lunch dessert in the form of bearclaw-related foods may have something to do with this confusion. I'll fix this, too. > I think the "tail patterns" feature would also benefit from at least > > > one example expression, which should explicitly include the concrete > > > result you expect. Here's one: > > > > > > (let-syntax > > > ((foo (syntax-rules () > > > ((foo x y ... z) (list x (list y ...) z))))) > > > (foo 1 2 3 4 5)) > > > => (1 (2 3 4) 5) > > > > I think this example isn't really necessary; there already is one -- > > FAKE-BEGIN -- which I think suffices. > > I like the expanded discussion of fake-begin, but I still think you > should have *at least* one example in the r5rs 1.3.4 format of > "<expression> => <value>", which allows people to cut and paste > <expression> into a repl and see <value> printed, and also allows them > to easily add the expression (equal? <expression> '<value>) to a test > suite and expect it to evaluate to #t. OK, very well, I'll add that. After all these changes you have made to the SRFI, Al*, at both the levels of fundamental design and written content, I think you really deserve to be noted as one of the SRFI's authors; after all, I just started the SRFI and wrote some text, whereas you changed the main body of the SRFI to be CYOE and rewrote much of the significant text -- do you agree, and would you mind if I update the document to reflect this?