Group Email Manager

login signup

Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

question on the opaque syntax object debate Andrew Wilcox (18 Aug 2005 15:58 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Andre van Tonder (18 Aug 2005 16:59 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Jens Axel Søgaard (21 Aug 2005 10:16 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (20 Aug 2005 06:50 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Matthias Neubauer (20 Aug 2005 13:19 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Andre van Tonder (20 Aug 2005 19:48 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (21 Aug 2005 09:50 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Panu Kalliokoski (21 Aug 2005 14:14 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (22 Aug 2005 16:00 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Andre van Tonder 18 Aug 2005 16:58 UTC 
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Andrew Wilcox wrote:

> I see in the email archives that this feature is controversial.  From
> the discussion I understand the following:
>
> [summary]

That's an excellent summary.

> Thus my question is: does PLT Scheme have syntax location features
> that this SRFI proposal is not able to provide?

There is one that it would in principle be able to provide but chooses not to:
The SRFI proposal requires the first argument of datum->syntax-object to be an
identifier, as indeed Chez does, while PLT allows an arbitrary syntax object
there.

There is no fundamental reason why this cannot be supported, but it
would make the reference implementation more complex.  Also,
I don't know how useful this feature really is in practice.

Cheers
Andre