From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: syntax closures Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:08:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87ip6pv0jm.fsf@pobox.com> <87d2wxqikf.fsf@pobox.com> <87sj4y1ab1.fsf@tines.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360922903 30742 80.91.229.3 (15 Feb 2013 10:08:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andy Wingo , guile-devel To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 15 11:08:45 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U6IDk-0005Wm-Dx for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:08:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51438 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6IDQ-00086p-O7 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:08:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49966) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6IDI-00086V-Ji for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:08:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6IDC-0003x6-LY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:08:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.212.54]:50958) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6IDC-0003ww-D5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:08:10 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l1so2068198vba.27 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:08:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9f+C7sFo6XnZ9SAxyTODP9edpdi3uwc3yEj9IqHZ9hM=; b=wDJcWVF03XO/CMQkrIoZoPiu1sUAwTmfHgUjO6dMKzcJ/0w2KgXVKk8c7eWy5A7RSs 00ipX2+hPc/v55OuJ3WnipEAlr3Yn5LY1Qxoj1OId/1wsEDB7/S/hG1a3nn2+/RgwNrN YqvkOMYuWPWx4EP5wJMasX1rMFdh7D63hGkOZ6peCz334e1WaKMRgvY9jvppxO88LpCM 8gTc2E+JA+tp7QrfCvIIPhnhDGTj4AkJn9w4wtLUKBXAMBOp7pskTd3HmLu5zvQymdiX rxMI7TKpZvvk70D8PaO/3f5XiL/ZE+l//Z0ZSHTgwcIkAOuK1+3CpjR9Ex1td9dYWmid JFsA== X-Received: by 10.52.71.174 with SMTP id w14mr1934196vdu.122.1360922888761; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:08:08 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.58.155.38 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:08:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87sj4y1ab1.fsf@tines.lan> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.212.54 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15746 Archived-At: BTW. Of cause if you read the doc's for srfi-72 you will see a whole different machinery that brings many features, they explicitly states 6 facts in the abstract for which I adress one in the code. On the other hand when they try to sell it it they just uses examples for the case for witch I try to implement a solution for. So in this light I would say that I practically cover 90% of srfi-72 intention. But from a theoretical standpoint I would just say 10%. /Stefan On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes: >> Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator [...] > > I'm pretty sure this is also false. One of the main points of SRFI-72 > is the improved hygiene algorithm, which is quite different than psyntax > in its details. Unless I'm mistaken, you have picked out only one small > aspect of SRFI-72 that happens to be relevant to what you're doing. > > Therefore, I don't think it should be called SRFI-72 either. > > Mark