Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@later.het.brown.edu> writes:

>
>  Hi Mike, thanks for the comments.
>
>  > I'd like to suggest that compound expressions be represented by an
>  > opaque type rather than by pairs.  This would ensure a modicum of
>  > abstraction, and would *really* make comprehensive the ability of all
>  > syntax objects to carry location information.
>
>  The current representation does allow source tracking for compound syntax
>  objects.  One would make the reader put the location of each node (pair or
>  vector) in a hash table.  Each evaluation of a SYNTAX or QUASISYNTAX form
>  can do likewise.  Since pairs keep their identity during expansion,
>  location information for every node (and identifier leaf) can always be
>  looked up in the hash table at any stage of the expansion.

[Sorry for replying out of order.]

You mean in a global hash table?  That's a hack around the lack of a
field in the syntax objects.  To make it work efficiently, you'd have
to bring weakness in---a lot of machinery to duplicate functionality
that would trivially work if syntax objects were abstract and thus
extensible.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla