From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>, guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Anything better for delayed lexical evaluation than (lambda () ...)?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:49:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r5089ui3.fsf@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zkewnzy7.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:28:32 -0500")
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 18:28, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
> >> (let ((xxx 2))
> >> #{ #(set! xxx (1+ xxx)) #})
> In the general case, Lilypond needs to _execute_ the outer Scheme code
> before the parser/evaluator is able to even _see_ the inner Scheme code,
> because it needs to parse/evaluate the Lily code in between the two, and
> we've already established that parsing cannot be not be done without
> runtime information.
What does it mean to execute a `(let ((xxx 2))' ? I think I need to
read the thread again, because I am really not getting it.
> (let ((xxx 2))
> (capture-lexical-environment))
>
> How difficult would it be to implement this?
Dunno. I was thinking that we could have a special form to return a
list of the identifiers in scope. Or perhaps, some syntax-bindings
procedure, to operate on syntax objects. A macro could use that data to
make a closure that captures all of the bindings, if that's your thing.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-13 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-03 15:45 Anything better for delayed lexical evaluation than (lambda () ...)? David Kastrup
2011-12-03 16:44 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-06 14:55 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2011-12-06 15:45 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-06 19:50 ` Marco Maggi
2011-12-11 9:33 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-11 9:51 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 5:21 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 6:47 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 18:29 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 19:56 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 20:39 ` rixed
2011-12-12 21:02 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 21:58 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 21:40 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 21:50 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 9:02 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 13:05 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 13:56 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 14:34 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 15:27 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 15:48 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 16:08 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 16:27 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 16:54 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 18:58 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 22:23 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 17:28 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-13 18:49 ` Andy Wingo [this message]
2011-12-13 19:15 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-13 23:00 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-13 23:16 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 23:44 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 23:39 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 23:45 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 10:15 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 10:32 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 0:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 8:16 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 0:42 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-14 0:47 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-14 1:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 7:50 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 8:48 ` [PATCH] Implement `capture-lexical-environment' in evaluator Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 9:08 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 9:36 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 9:21 ` [PATCH] Implement `the-environment' and `local-eval' " Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 9:32 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-16 14:00 ` Peter TB Brett
2011-12-16 14:26 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-16 15:27 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 16:01 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-16 17:44 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 19:12 ` Mark H Weaver
2012-01-07 1:26 ` Andy Wingo
2012-01-07 17:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2012-01-07 1:18 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-16 16:59 ` Hans Aberg
2011-12-14 10:08 ` Anything better for delayed lexical evaluation than (lambda () ...)? Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 10:27 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 13:35 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 15:21 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 15:55 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 17:26 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 18:23 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 18:38 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 19:14 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 19:44 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 22:56 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 11:03 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 11:18 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 13:31 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-14 21:03 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 22:12 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 22:24 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 22:55 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 16:24 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 15:52 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 11:14 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 13:52 ` Ludovic Courtès
2011-12-14 14:27 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 21:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
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=87r5089ui3.fsf@pobox.com \
--to=wingo@pobox.com \
--cc=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=mhw@netris.org \
/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).