Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 07 Jun 2021 15:45 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 07 Jun 2021 16:07 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 09 Jun 2021 08:49 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 09:13 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 09 Jun 2021 09:42 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley 09 Jun 2021 10:24 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 10:32 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley 09 Jun 2021 12:16 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 12:40 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley 09 Jun 2021 13:10 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 15:56 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley 09 Jun 2021 18:15 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 10:27 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 14 Oct 2021 10:42 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 09 Jun 2021 17:22 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 17:37 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Peter Bex 08 Jun 2021 05:17 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Per Bothner 08 Jun 2021 05:38 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 09 Jun 2021 09:00 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Per Bothner 10 Jun 2021 17:23 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 21 Jun 2021 07:23 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 09 Jun 2021 08:55 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 09 Jun 2021 14:29 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 14:44 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 09 Jun 2021 17:03 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 17:33 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 09 Jun 2021 17:37 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 17:40 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 09 Jun 2021 19:01 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jun 2021 19:25 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 10 Jun 2021 10:17 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 10 Jun 2021 11:18 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 12 Jun 2021 22:08 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 21 Jun 2021 07:21 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 21 Jun 2021 10:37 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 29 Jul 2021 09:42 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 29 Jul 2021 23:34 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 30 Jul 2021 07:03 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 30 Jul 2021 07:31 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 30 Jul 2021 21:39 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 30 Jul 2021 21:47 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 30 Jul 2021 21:49 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 30 Jul 2021 21:59 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 30 Jul 2021 21:32 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 31 Jul 2021 10:02 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 31 Jul 2021 10:29 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 31 Jul 2021 17:33 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 31 Jul 2021 17:45 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 31 Jul 2021 18:04 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan 31 Jul 2021 19:52 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 02 Dec 2021 17:57 UTC
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Jeronimo Pellegrini 03 Dec 2021 03:32 UTC

Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 09 Jun 2021 08:49 UTC

On 7 Jun 2021, at 18:07, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

>> One thing I'm already aware of: in the conclusion, I mention that it would be nice to have compiler macros in Scheme; at the time, I was unaware that R6RS Schemes effectively have them through the ability to have syntax patterns match an identifier out of first-position context, and that this is on the ballot for R7RS as part of syntax-case. One thing I'd like to know, not only in this context, is what (potential) implementers of R7 think of this: Do you think you could implement it?
>
> As someone who has implemented this kind of thing more than once: Adding identifier macros to existing macro systems is easy. So it is not a question of whether this can be technically done. The question is whether implementers are willing to implement it. Unfortunately, a lot of FUD was raised about it during the finalization of R6RS, so the topic seems a bit poisoned.

To my knowledge, though, you've mostly worked on new Scheme systems? (Correct me if my assumption is wrong.) I'm more concerned about systems like Chicken and Gambit with tens of thousands of lines of implementation code and goodness knows where in all those lines the assumption may be hiding that macros are only expanded from lists where the name of the macro is in first position and not from arbitrary identifiers anywhere. There are also scoping issues which may conflict with existing implementations' need: if I have defined foo as identifier syntax, (let ((foo 'example)) foo) should still return example, which might break existing Schemes' assumptions about how namespacing of syntax keywords vs normal identifiers works.

But this whole area of Scheme is new to me, so maybe I'm just unintentionally spreading more FUD.

> It is probably a good idea to resolve this question first because the answer to it (and to the question of whether R7RS-large will have procedural macros) dictates what keyword and optional parameter proposals can be made work. The more syntactic abstractions we can use, the less we have to worry about performance and usability.

Yes, I've come to agree with this myself. Fortunately it won't be so long until we know, I think John is intending to ballot the question later this year or early next, since that docket is nearly completely SRFI’d already.

Daphne