On 23-02-2023 12:38, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
> 
>> For complicated macros, especially macros that are used correctly but
>> have a bug in their implementation somewhere and use 'syntax-case'
>> or 'syntax-rules' multiple times, it can be very convenient to know
>> _which_ syntax-case or syntax-rules raised the syntax-error.
>>
>> E.g., I'm currently debugging some changes to a (non-Guile) macro,
>> and I don't know what to make of the following -- the '#:getter . datum-type'
>> isn't even present in the original code anywhere:
>>
>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
>> Syntax error:
>> unknown location: source expression failed to match any pattern in form (#:getter . datum-type)
>> make: *** [Makefile:1333: gnu/gnunet/dht/client.go] Fout 1
>>
>> As such, partially revert the following commit that does not give a
>> rationale on how backtraces for syntax errors aren't helpful.
> 
> Do you have a simple reproducer and a before/after comparison showing
> what Guile prints?

Looks like the patch didn't actually work:

(define-syntax syntax-stuff-twice
   (lambda (s)
     (define (process/internal object)
       ;; Oops! Only certain forms of 'object' were accepted.
       (throw 'syntax-error "syntax-stuff-twice" "bad" '() object object))
     (define (process/x x)
       #`(list #,(process/internal x)))
     (define (process/y y)
       #`(vector #,(process/internal y)))
     (define (computify o)
       (datum->syntax #false o))
     (syntax-case s ()
       ((_)
        ;; Let's compute some syntax, for some reason.
        (let ((x (computify "imagine this syntax is very hard to follow"))
              (y (computify "and difficult to distinguish from this")))
          #`(list #,(process/x x) #,(process/y y)))))))

(syntax-stuff-twice)

;; Before:
;;  unknown file:#f:#f: syntax-stuff-twice: bad in subform 
#<syntax:reproducer.scm:15:27 "imagine this syntax is very hard to 
follow"> of #<syntax:reproducer.scm:15:27 "imagine this syntax is very 
hard to follow">
;; After:
;;  [the same thing]
;;
;; Looks like another patch is needed ...