bound identifiers

bound identifiers

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

why are these two not equal in the sense of bound-identifier=?

#(syntax-object x ((top) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage
#(x) #((m1104 top)) #("i1105"))) (hygiene guile-user))
#(syntax-object x ((#f top) shift #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage #(x)
#((m1104 top)) #("i1105"))) (hygiene guile-user)))

/Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 365 bytes --]

Re: bound identifiers

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com> writes:

> why are these two not equal in the sense of bound-identifier=?
>
> #(syntax-object x ((top) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage #(x) #((m1104 top)) #("i1105"))) (hygiene guile-user))
> #(syntax-object x ((#f top) shift #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage #(x) #((m1104 top)) #("i1105"))) (hygiene guile-user)))

One has been anti-marked and the other has not?  Meaning that one was
made up by your syntax expander, and the other and the other came in as
part of the form.

But that's not the right question or answer.  Can you should where these
identifiers come from?

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: bound identifiers

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]

In syntax parse the racket code stores syntax values inside structs and
then transport them
down the macro chain as argument to macros. Then when unpacking the struct
they are compared
with arguments of syntax values. I think that this is the reason. I tried
to experiment with
psyntax macro expander to poke inside structs and that solved this issue.
But on the other hand
even worse problem appeared.

What I did now was to manually clean the syntax values e.g. remove #f and
shift from the
syntax value and this gave the best result.

As you see, it's just wild west to get the racket code working.

Mayby just writing a version from scratch would be better.

/Stefan

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > why are these two not equal in the sense of bound-identifier=?
> >
> > #(syntax-object x ((top) #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage () () ())
> #(ribcage #(x) #((m1104 top)) #("i1105"))) (hygiene guile-user))
> > #(syntax-object x ((#f top) shift #(ribcage () () ()) #(ribcage #(x)
> #((m1104 top)) #("i1105"))) (hygiene guile-user)))
>
> One has been anti-marked and the other has not?  Meaning that one was
> made up by your syntax expander, and the other and the other came in as
> part of the form.
>
> But that's not the right question or answer.  Can you should where these
> identifiers come from?
>
> Andy
> --
> http://wingolog.org/
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2043 bytes --]

Re: bound identifiers

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 16 Jan 2012 22:28, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> why are these two not equal in the sense of bound-identifier=?
>>
> But that's not the right question or answer.  Can you should where these
> identifiers come from?

Sorry, I've been making lots of typos recently.  I meant to say, "can
you show where these identifiers come from?"

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: bound identifiers

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 16 Jan 2012 22:56, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com> writes:

> As you see, it's just wild west to get the racket code working.

:)

Can you give a stripped-down test case for this particular behavior?

That code is paged into my and Mark's minds right now :)

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: bound identifiers

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

Yes!

see attachement!

/Stefan

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 22:56, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > As you see, it's just wild west to get the racket code working.
>
> :)
>
> Can you give a stripped-down test case for this particular behavior?
>
> That code is paged into my and Mark's minds right now :)
>
> Andy
> --
> http://wingolog.org/
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 914 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: bound-id.scm --]
[-- Type: text/x-scheme, Size: 413 bytes --]

(use-modules (srfi srfi-9))
(define-record-type data
  (make-data stx)
  data?
  (stx data-stx))

(define-syntax b
  (lambda (x)
    (syntax-case x ()
      ((_ s)
       (with-syntax ((d (datum->syntax #'#f (make-data #'s))))
         #'(c #'s #'d))))))

(define (c s d)
  (let ((d (data-stx (syntax->datum d))))
    (pk s)
    (pk d)
    (bound-identifier=? s d)))

(eval '(let ((t 1)) (b t)) (current-module))