Re: Initial comments & questions
Ken Dickey
(20 Mar 2004 16:20 UTC)
|
Re: Initial comments & questions
Andre van Tonder
(21 Mar 2004 13:28 UTC)
|
Re: Initial comments & questions
Andre van Tonder
(21 Mar 2004 14:09 UTC)
|
Re: Initial comments & questions
Ken Dickey
(22 Mar 2004 00:11 UTC)
|
Re: Initial comments & questions Andre van Tonder (22 Mar 2004 18:00 UTC)
|
Re: Initial comments & questions Andre van Tonder 22 Mar 2004 18:00 UTC
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ken Dickey wrote: > Andre van Tonder wrote:> > > First, in the monadic prior art, *bind* is already used for something more > > akin to the current internal *syntax-bind*, so using bind for do could > > cause confusion. > > But in Scheme prior art [T, Slade, 1987] BIND is used for (dynamic) binding > forms. We speak of lexical BINDings. I agree. syntax-bind would be more Schemely, and I like it. > So SYNTAX-LET* would make sense for that usage! [Freeing up SYNTAX-BIND for > the syntax-do which does not DO]. I like this proposal also. The one possible source of confusion, which could also happen with syntax-bind, is that the types of the LHS and RHS are different, e.g., (syntax-let* ((x (syntax-return (1 2 3))) (y (syntax-return x)) ... i.e., the variables on the LHS refer to syntax, and the RHSs have to be computations. By the way, I wish I could come up with a briefer name for *syntax-return*. Just SYNTAX would have been nice, but that's already taken :( > > Second, in e.g. Haskell, > > Hey, not to belabor this too much, but *this is Scheme*. > ... > Your proposed forms should accord with Scheme forms in common use. Anything > else is confusing by design. > > Designing for clarity is designing for the context of your (desired) users. Point taken :) > > 2) Perhaps in future have syntax-begin for imperative > > things like syntax-debug-message. The above syntax-do example becomes > > I think you are making the argument for a declarative debug form here. I > support the notion. Could you perhaps suggest an example of what such a thing could look like? > Did you like SYNTAX-QUOTE ? I'm thinking af changing the specification of syntax-inspect to invoke an inspector if there is one... Regards Andre