From: Ian Price <ianprice90@googlemail.com>
To: Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: lua branch
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:28:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877gkuptcn.fsf@Kagami.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364278441.2815.12.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> (Nala Ginrut's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:14:01 +0800")
Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> writes:
> + (let* ((old-vararg-function *vararg-function*)
> + (old-vararg-gensym *vararg-gensym*))
>
> Is 'let' better here?
Actually, I didn't notice that it was a let*. It's arguably a little
more confusing, but not really harmful.
> + ;; refers to the gensym for '...' in a function that accepts variable
> arguments
> + (define *vararg-gensym* #f)
> +
>
> I know it's consistent with the old code, but maybe parameterize is
> suggested?
Yeah, fluid-let or parameterize is a lot better to my mind, but this way
was less invasive.
> Besides, as we talked in IRC, LALR/PEG is better than this manual
> parser. But I think this lua implementation could work after some
> patches, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to rewrite it with LALR/PEG.
> What do you think?
It's not necessary, and I don't have any intention of ripping out the
parser and writing a new one. If someone else wrote one though, I think
we should consider it.
--
Ian Price -- shift-reset.com
"Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is
the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-26 6:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-26 4:56 lua branch Ian Price
2013-03-26 5:50 ` Ian Price
2013-03-26 6:14 ` Nala Ginrut
2013-03-26 6:28 ` Ian Price [this message]
2013-03-26 21:52 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-04-12 14:27 ` Ian Price
2013-04-17 23:09 ` Ian Price
2013-05-21 20:42 ` Phil
2013-05-21 21:25 ` Phil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877gkuptcn.fsf@Kagami.home \
--to=ianprice90@googlemail.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=nalaginrut@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).