source-location->source-properties

source-location->source-properties

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

"Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> --- a/module/system/base/lalr.scm
> +++ b/module/system/base/lalr.scm
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
>              source-location-column
>              source-location-offset
>              source-location-length
> +            source-location->source-properties
>
>              ;; `lalr-parser' is a defmacro, which produces code that refers to
>              ;; these drivers.
> @@ -43,3 +44,8 @@
>  ;; The LALR parser generator was written by Dominique Boucher.  It's available
>  ;; from http://code.google.com/p/lalr-scm/ and released under the LGPLv3+.
>  (include-from-path "system/base/lalr.upstream.scm")
> +
> +(define (source-location->source-properties loc)
> +  `((filename . ,(source-location-input loc))
> +    (line . ,(source-location-line loc))
> +    (column . ,(source-location-column loc))))

I was thinking that this procedure could be made internal to the ES
compiler, so that the export list of (system base lalr) remains
identical to that upstream.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: source-location->source-properties

[Andy Wingo]

Hello :)

On Thu 18 Nov 2010 22:37, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi!

Hey I'm caught up to this week! :)

> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> +            source-location->source-properties
>
> I was thinking that this procedure could be made internal to the ES
> compiler, so that the export list of (system base lalr) remains
> identical to that upstream.

Well, we could. It just seemed like something other compiler writers
might want, so I put it here. Is it important that we have exactly the
same set of exports as upstream, or is a compatible set sufficient?

I'm happy to move it, but I would like to come to some shared
understanding of how to deal with external projects in Guile.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: source-location->source-properties

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Thu 18 Nov 2010 22:37, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> +            source-location->source-properties
>>
>> I was thinking that this procedure could be made internal to the ES
>> compiler, so that the export list of (system base lalr) remains
>> identical to that upstream.
>
> Well, we could. It just seemed like something other compiler writers
> might want, so I put it here.

I’d keep it private to the ES compiler until it’s actually needed
elsewhere.  No big deal, though.

> Is it important that we have exactly the same set of exports as
> upstream, or is a compatible set sufficient?

I’d rather export the same bindings as upstream.  This should make life
easier to people using the same module in other schemes, for instance.

Thanks,
Ludo’.