unofficial mirror of guile-user@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: return macro
@ 2021-09-30 20:55 dsmich
  2021-10-01  8:37 ` adriano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: dsmich @ 2021-09-30 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'adriano'; +Cc: 'guile-user'

From: "adriano" 

> (import (ice-9 control))
 >
 > (define (test x)
 > (let/ec return
 > (cond
 > ((= x 3) (return 7))
 > ((= x 2) (return 5)))))

 > What does this return (defined with let/ec) do ?

 > In the orevious versions I could see the call to call/cc so I could
 > (somewhat) figure out the "jump" imlpied by calling return

> But in this last case, where is the return behaviour defined ?

See
https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/guile.html#index-let_002fec

-Dale




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: return macro
  2021-09-30 20:55 return macro dsmich
@ 2021-10-01  8:37 ` adriano
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: adriano @ 2021-10-01  8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'guile-user'

Il giorno gio, 30/09/2021 alle 20.55 +0000, dsmich@roadrunner.com ha
scritto:
> From: "adriano" 
> 
> >   (import (ice-9 control))
>  >
>  >   (define (test x)
>  >     (let/ec return
>  >       (cond
>  >         ((= x 3) (return 7))
>  >         ((= x 2) (return 5)))))
> 
>  > What does this return (defined with let/ec) do ?
> 
>  > In the orevious versions I could see the call to call/cc so I
> could
>  > (somewhat) figure out the "jump" imlpied by calling return
> 
> > But in this last case, where is the return behaviour defined ?
> 
> See https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/guile.html#index-
> let_002fec
> 
> -Dale
> 

thank you



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: return macro
  2021-09-30  8:46     ` Damien Mattei
@ 2021-09-30  9:18       ` Stefan Israelsson Tampe
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe @ 2021-09-30  9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Damien Mattei; +Cc: guile-user

used write a lambda using it prepending a ,opt and you will see what the
macros expand to like

,opt (lambda (x) (let/ec ret (when x (ret x)) (+ x x)))

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:46 AM Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com>
wrote:

> i do not remember well the technic of this commented code, in this case
> note that it is 'break' keyword that cause the current continuation being
> called and escaping from the loop to the continuing code...
> there is no 'return' here but 'break'.
> Damien
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 5:38 AM adriano <randomlooser@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > Il giorno lun, 28/06/2021 alle 03.15 +0200, Taylan Kammer ha scritto:
> > > On 28.06.2021 01:10, Damien Mattei wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > i wanted to create a macro that is used like a function definition
> > > > and
> > > > allow return using call/cc:
> > > >
> > > > (define-syntax def
> > > > (syntax-rules (return)
> > > > ((_ (name args ...) body body* ...)
> > > > (define name (lambda (args ...)
> > > > (call/cc (lambda (return) body body* ...)))))
> > > > ((_ name expr) (define name expr))))
> > > >
> > > > unfortunaly i got error:
> > > >
> > > > scheme@(guile-user)> (def (test x) (cond ((= x 3) 7) ((= x 2)
> > > > (return 5))
> > > > (else 3)))
> > > > ;;; <stdin>:2:42: warning: possibly unbound variable `return'
> > > > scheme@(guile-user)> (test 2)
> > > > ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> > > > Unbound variable: return
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > any idea?
> > >
> > > Hi Damien,
> > >
> > > This is because of the "hygiene" rule of Scheme, where the notion of
> > > "lexical
> > > scope" is taken very seriously: for an identifier to be bound, it
> > > must be
> > > visible in the lexical (textual) surroundings where it has been
> > > bound.
> > >
> > > So for instance, in the following example code:
> > >
> > >   (def (test x)
> > >     (cond
> > >      ((= x 3) (return 7))
> > >      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
> > >
> > > We can't see a binding for "return" anywhere in the text, therefore
> > > it cannot
> > > be bound.
> > >
> > > This is good "default" behavior because it makes code more flexible
> > > and easier
> > > to understand.
> > >
> > > An easy way of overcoming this issue is to let the user explicitly
> > > name the
> > > return identifier however they like:
> > >
> > >   (define-syntax def
> > >     (syntax-rules ()
> > >       ((_ (name ret arg ...) body body* ...)
> > >        (define (name arg ...)
> > >          (call/cc (lambda (ret) body body* ...))))))
> > >
> > > Now you could define:
> > >
> > >   (def (test return x)
> > >     (cond
> > >      ((= x 3) (return 7))
> > >      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
> > >
> > > Or for instance:
> > >
> > >   (def (test blubba x)
> > >     (cond
> > >      ((= x 3) (blubba 7))
> > >      ((= x 2) (blubba 5))))
> > >
> > > However, sometimes you're sure that you want to make an implicit
> > > binding for
> > > an identifier, and for those cases you need to write an "unhygienic"
> > > macro
> > > which can be achieved with the more complex macro system "syntax-
> > > case".
> > >
> > > Here's how your desired macro could be defined.  I will use
> > > identifiers like
> > > "<foo>" just for easier readability; they don't have any special
> > > meaning:
> > >
> > >   (define-syntax def
> > >     (lambda (stx)
> > >       (syntax-case stx ()
> > >         ((_ (<name> <arg> ...) <body> <body>* ...)
> > >          (let ((ret-id (datum->syntax stx 'return)))
> > >            #`(define (<name> <arg> ...)
> > >                (call/cc (lambda (#,ret-id) <body> <body>* ...))))))))
> > >
> > > There's a few things here to take note of:
> > >
> > > - Unlike with syntax-rules, the syntax-case is contained in a lambda
> > > which
> > >   takes a single argument: a "syntax object" which is passed to
> > > syntax-case
> > >
> > > - Unlike with syntax-rules, the "body" of the macro (where it begins
> > > with a
> > >   'let') is not immediately part of the generated code; that 'let' is
> > > actually
> > >   executed during compile-time.  The body of the macro must result in
> > > an
> > >   object of the type "syntax object" that represents the generated
> > > code.
> > >
> > > - You see that I define a variable called "ret-id" which I bind to
> > > the result
> > >   of the expression:
> > >
> > >     (datum->syntax stx 'return)
> > >
> > >   which means "create a syntax object in the same lexical environment
> > > as stx,
> > >   and is represented by the symbol 'return'."
> > >
> > > - The actual code generation begins within the #`(...) which is a
> > > shorthand
> > >   for (quasisyntax (...)) just like '(...) is short for (quote
> > > (...)).  The
> > >   result of a quasisyntax expression is a syntax object.  Basically,
> > > it's the
> > >   most convenient way of creating a syntax object, but like syntax-
> > > rules it's
> > >   also hygienic by default and you need to insert "unhygienic" syntax
> > > objects
> > >   into it explicitly.
> > >
> > > - Within the quasisyntax, I use #,ret-id which is short for (unsyntax
> > > ret-id)
> > >   to inject the unhygienic syntax object that holds the symbol
> > > 'return' into
> > >   the generated code.
> > >
> > > For someone used to macros in the Common Lisp or Elisp style, this
> > > may seem
> > > over-complicated.  It's the cost of the "hygienic by default"
> > > behavior.
> > >
> > > By the way I assume that you're just toying around with the language
> > > to learn.
> > > If you were thinking of using a 'def' macro like this in real code, I
> > > would
> > > discourage it because there's already a built-in mechanism that
> > > allows the
> > > programmer something very similar, called 'let/ec':
> > >
> > >   (import (ice-9 control))
> > >
> > >   (define (test x)
> > >     (let/ec return
> > >       (cond
> > >         ((= x 3) (return 7))
> > >         ((= x 2) (return 5)))))
> >
> >
> >
> > What does this return (defined with let/ec) do ?
> >
> > In the orevious versions I could see the call to call/cc so I could
> > (somewhat) figure out the "jump" imlpied by calling return
> >
> > But in this last case, where is the return behaviour defined ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: return macro
  2021-09-30  3:37   ` adriano
@ 2021-09-30  8:46     ` Damien Mattei
  2021-09-30  9:18       ` Stefan Israelsson Tampe
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Damien Mattei @ 2021-09-30  8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: adriano; +Cc: guile-user

i do not remember well the technic of this commented code, in this case
note that it is 'break' keyword that cause the current continuation being
called and escaping from the loop to the continuing code...
there is no 'return' here but 'break'.
Damien

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 5:38 AM adriano <randomlooser@riseup.net> wrote:

> Il giorno lun, 28/06/2021 alle 03.15 +0200, Taylan Kammer ha scritto:
> > On 28.06.2021 01:10, Damien Mattei wrote:
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > i wanted to create a macro that is used like a function definition
> > > and
> > > allow return using call/cc:
> > >
> > > (define-syntax def
> > > (syntax-rules (return)
> > > ((_ (name args ...) body body* ...)
> > > (define name (lambda (args ...)
> > > (call/cc (lambda (return) body body* ...)))))
> > > ((_ name expr) (define name expr))))
> > >
> > > unfortunaly i got error:
> > >
> > > scheme@(guile-user)> (def (test x) (cond ((= x 3) 7) ((= x 2)
> > > (return 5))
> > > (else 3)))
> > > ;;; <stdin>:2:42: warning: possibly unbound variable `return'
> > > scheme@(guile-user)> (test 2)
> > > ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> > > Unbound variable: return
> > >
> > >
> > > any idea?
> >
> > Hi Damien,
> >
> > This is because of the "hygiene" rule of Scheme, where the notion of
> > "lexical
> > scope" is taken very seriously: for an identifier to be bound, it
> > must be
> > visible in the lexical (textual) surroundings where it has been
> > bound.
> >
> > So for instance, in the following example code:
> >
> >   (def (test x)
> >     (cond
> >      ((= x 3) (return 7))
> >      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
> >
> > We can't see a binding for "return" anywhere in the text, therefore
> > it cannot
> > be bound.
> >
> > This is good "default" behavior because it makes code more flexible
> > and easier
> > to understand.
> >
> > An easy way of overcoming this issue is to let the user explicitly
> > name the
> > return identifier however they like:
> >
> >   (define-syntax def
> >     (syntax-rules ()
> >       ((_ (name ret arg ...) body body* ...)
> >        (define (name arg ...)
> >          (call/cc (lambda (ret) body body* ...))))))
> >
> > Now you could define:
> >
> >   (def (test return x)
> >     (cond
> >      ((= x 3) (return 7))
> >      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
> >
> > Or for instance:
> >
> >   (def (test blubba x)
> >     (cond
> >      ((= x 3) (blubba 7))
> >      ((= x 2) (blubba 5))))
> >
> > However, sometimes you're sure that you want to make an implicit
> > binding for
> > an identifier, and for those cases you need to write an "unhygienic"
> > macro
> > which can be achieved with the more complex macro system "syntax-
> > case".
> >
> > Here's how your desired macro could be defined.  I will use
> > identifiers like
> > "<foo>" just for easier readability; they don't have any special
> > meaning:
> >
> >   (define-syntax def
> >     (lambda (stx)
> >       (syntax-case stx ()
> >         ((_ (<name> <arg> ...) <body> <body>* ...)
> >          (let ((ret-id (datum->syntax stx 'return)))
> >            #`(define (<name> <arg> ...)
> >                (call/cc (lambda (#,ret-id) <body> <body>* ...))))))))
> >
> > There's a few things here to take note of:
> >
> > - Unlike with syntax-rules, the syntax-case is contained in a lambda
> > which
> >   takes a single argument: a "syntax object" which is passed to
> > syntax-case
> >
> > - Unlike with syntax-rules, the "body" of the macro (where it begins
> > with a
> >   'let') is not immediately part of the generated code; that 'let' is
> > actually
> >   executed during compile-time.  The body of the macro must result in
> > an
> >   object of the type "syntax object" that represents the generated
> > code.
> >
> > - You see that I define a variable called "ret-id" which I bind to
> > the result
> >   of the expression:
> >
> >     (datum->syntax stx 'return)
> >
> >   which means "create a syntax object in the same lexical environment
> > as stx,
> >   and is represented by the symbol 'return'."
> >
> > - The actual code generation begins within the #`(...) which is a
> > shorthand
> >   for (quasisyntax (...)) just like '(...) is short for (quote
> > (...)).  The
> >   result of a quasisyntax expression is a syntax object.  Basically,
> > it's the
> >   most convenient way of creating a syntax object, but like syntax-
> > rules it's
> >   also hygienic by default and you need to insert "unhygienic" syntax
> > objects
> >   into it explicitly.
> >
> > - Within the quasisyntax, I use #,ret-id which is short for (unsyntax
> > ret-id)
> >   to inject the unhygienic syntax object that holds the symbol
> > 'return' into
> >   the generated code.
> >
> > For someone used to macros in the Common Lisp or Elisp style, this
> > may seem
> > over-complicated.  It's the cost of the "hygienic by default"
> > behavior.
> >
> > By the way I assume that you're just toying around with the language
> > to learn.
> > If you were thinking of using a 'def' macro like this in real code, I
> > would
> > discourage it because there's already a built-in mechanism that
> > allows the
> > programmer something very similar, called 'let/ec':
> >
> >   (import (ice-9 control))
> >
> >   (define (test x)
> >     (let/ec return
> >       (cond
> >         ((= x 3) (return 7))
> >         ((= x 2) (return 5)))))
>
>
>
> What does this return (defined with let/ec) do ?
>
> In the orevious versions I could see the call to call/cc so I could
> (somewhat) figure out the "jump" imlpied by calling return
>
> But in this last case, where is the return behaviour defined ?
>
>
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: return macro
  2021-06-28  1:15 ` Taylan Kammer
  2021-06-28  8:53   ` Damien Mattei
@ 2021-09-30  3:37   ` adriano
  2021-09-30  8:46     ` Damien Mattei
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: adriano @ 2021-09-30  3:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guile-user

Il giorno lun, 28/06/2021 alle 03.15 +0200, Taylan Kammer ha scritto:
> On 28.06.2021 01:10, Damien Mattei wrote:
> > hi,
> > 
> > i wanted to create a macro that is used like a function definition
> > and
> > allow return using call/cc:
> > 
> > (define-syntax def
> > (syntax-rules (return)
> > ((_ (name args ...) body body* ...)
> > (define name (lambda (args ...)
> > (call/cc (lambda (return) body body* ...)))))
> > ((_ name expr) (define name expr))))
> > 
> > unfortunaly i got error:
> > 
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (def (test x) (cond ((= x 3) 7) ((= x 2)
> > (return 5))
> > (else 3)))
> > ;;; <stdin>:2:42: warning: possibly unbound variable `return'
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (test 2)
> > ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> > Unbound variable: return
> > 
> > 
> > any idea?
> 
> Hi Damien,
> 
> This is because of the "hygiene" rule of Scheme, where the notion of
> "lexical
> scope" is taken very seriously: for an identifier to be bound, it
> must be
> visible in the lexical (textual) surroundings where it has been
> bound.
> 
> So for instance, in the following example code:
> 
>   (def (test x)
>     (cond
>      ((= x 3) (return 7))
>      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
> 
> We can't see a binding for "return" anywhere in the text, therefore
> it cannot
> be bound.
> 
> This is good "default" behavior because it makes code more flexible
> and easier
> to understand.
> 
> An easy way of overcoming this issue is to let the user explicitly
> name the
> return identifier however they like:
> 
>   (define-syntax def
>     (syntax-rules ()
>       ((_ (name ret arg ...) body body* ...)
>        (define (name arg ...)
>          (call/cc (lambda (ret) body body* ...))))))
> 
> Now you could define:
> 
>   (def (test return x)
>     (cond
>      ((= x 3) (return 7))
>      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
> 
> Or for instance:
> 
>   (def (test blubba x)
>     (cond
>      ((= x 3) (blubba 7))
>      ((= x 2) (blubba 5))))
> 
> However, sometimes you're sure that you want to make an implicit
> binding for
> an identifier, and for those cases you need to write an "unhygienic"
> macro
> which can be achieved with the more complex macro system "syntax-
> case".
> 
> Here's how your desired macro could be defined.  I will use
> identifiers like
> "<foo>" just for easier readability; they don't have any special
> meaning:
> 
>   (define-syntax def
>     (lambda (stx)
>       (syntax-case stx ()
>         ((_ (<name> <arg> ...) <body> <body>* ...)
>          (let ((ret-id (datum->syntax stx 'return)))
>            #`(define (<name> <arg> ...)
>                (call/cc (lambda (#,ret-id) <body> <body>* ...))))))))
> 
> There's a few things here to take note of:
> 
> - Unlike with syntax-rules, the syntax-case is contained in a lambda
> which
>   takes a single argument: a "syntax object" which is passed to
> syntax-case
> 
> - Unlike with syntax-rules, the "body" of the macro (where it begins
> with a
>   'let') is not immediately part of the generated code; that 'let' is
> actually
>   executed during compile-time.  The body of the macro must result in
> an
>   object of the type "syntax object" that represents the generated
> code.
> 
> - You see that I define a variable called "ret-id" which I bind to
> the result
>   of the expression:
> 
>     (datum->syntax stx 'return)
> 
>   which means "create a syntax object in the same lexical environment
> as stx,
>   and is represented by the symbol 'return'."
> 
> - The actual code generation begins within the #`(...) which is a
> shorthand
>   for (quasisyntax (...)) just like '(...) is short for (quote
> (...)).  The
>   result of a quasisyntax expression is a syntax object.  Basically,
> it's the
>   most convenient way of creating a syntax object, but like syntax-
> rules it's
>   also hygienic by default and you need to insert "unhygienic" syntax
> objects
>   into it explicitly.
> 
> - Within the quasisyntax, I use #,ret-id which is short for (unsyntax
> ret-id)
>   to inject the unhygienic syntax object that holds the symbol
> 'return' into
>   the generated code.
> 
> For someone used to macros in the Common Lisp or Elisp style, this
> may seem
> over-complicated.  It's the cost of the "hygienic by default"
> behavior.
> 
> By the way I assume that you're just toying around with the language
> to learn.
> If you were thinking of using a 'def' macro like this in real code, I
> would
> discourage it because there's already a built-in mechanism that
> allows the
> programmer something very similar, called 'let/ec':
> 
>   (import (ice-9 control))
> 
>   (define (test x)
>     (let/ec return
>       (cond
>         ((= x 3) (return 7))
>         ((= x 2) (return 5)))))



What does this return (defined with let/ec) do ?

In the orevious versions I could see the call to call/cc so I could
(somewhat) figure out the "jump" imlpied by calling return

But in this last case, where is the return behaviour defined ?





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: return macro
  2021-06-28  1:15 ` Taylan Kammer
@ 2021-06-28  8:53   ` Damien Mattei
  2021-09-30  3:37   ` adriano
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Damien Mattei @ 2021-06-28  8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Taylan Kammer; +Cc: guile-user

thank Taylan

i already use all that in the past (
https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/syntactic-sugar.scm#L133
)
but it was late ,past 1h00 and i forget it, and it was not compatible with
R5RS
thank for your long and clear explainations...
i did not use let/ec because the problem was not with let/ec or call/cc but
with the macro hygiene
and i wanted  to stay compatible with other scheme,let/ec should be guile
only and i suppose let/ec made with call/cc .
regards,
damien


On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 3:15 AM Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 28.06.2021 01:10, Damien Mattei wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > i wanted to create a macro that is used like a function definition and
> > allow return using call/cc:
> >
> > (define-syntax def
> > (syntax-rules (return)
> > ((_ (name args ...) body body* ...)
> > (define name (lambda (args ...)
> > (call/cc (lambda (return) body body* ...)))))
> > ((_ name expr) (define name expr))))
> >
> > unfortunaly i got error:
> >
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (def (test x) (cond ((= x 3) 7) ((= x 2) (return
> 5))
> > (else 3)))
> > ;;; <stdin>:2:42: warning: possibly unbound variable `return'
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (test 2)
> > ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> > Unbound variable: return
> >
> >
> > any idea?
>
> Hi Damien,
>
> This is because of the "hygiene" rule of Scheme, where the notion of
> "lexical
> scope" is taken very seriously: for an identifier to be bound, it must be
> visible in the lexical (textual) surroundings where it has been bound.
>
> So for instance, in the following example code:
>
>   (def (test x)
>     (cond
>      ((= x 3) (return 7))
>      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
>
> We can't see a binding for "return" anywhere in the text, therefore it
> cannot
> be bound.
>
> This is good "default" behavior because it makes code more flexible and
> easier
> to understand.
>
> An easy way of overcoming this issue is to let the user explicitly name the
> return identifier however they like:
>
>   (define-syntax def
>     (syntax-rules ()
>       ((_ (name ret arg ...) body body* ...)
>        (define (name arg ...)
>          (call/cc (lambda (ret) body body* ...))))))
>
> Now you could define:
>
>   (def (test return x)
>     (cond
>      ((= x 3) (return 7))
>      ((= x 2) (return 5))))
>
> Or for instance:
>
>   (def (test blubba x)
>     (cond
>      ((= x 3) (blubba 7))
>      ((= x 2) (blubba 5))))
>
> However, sometimes you're sure that you want to make an implicit binding
> for
> an identifier, and for those cases you need to write an "unhygienic" macro
> which can be achieved with the more complex macro system "syntax-case".
>
> Here's how your desired macro could be defined.  I will use identifiers
> like
> "<foo>" just for easier readability; they don't have any special meaning:
>
>   (define-syntax def
>     (lambda (stx)
>       (syntax-case stx ()
>         ((_ (<name> <arg> ...) <body> <body>* ...)
>          (let ((ret-id (datum->syntax stx 'return)))
>            #`(define (<name> <arg> ...)
>                (call/cc (lambda (#,ret-id) <body> <body>* ...))))))))
>
> There's a few things here to take note of:
>
> - Unlike with syntax-rules, the syntax-case is contained in a lambda which
>   takes a single argument: a "syntax object" which is passed to syntax-case
>
> - Unlike with syntax-rules, the "body" of the macro (where it begins with a
>   'let') is not immediately part of the generated code; that 'let' is
> actually
>   executed during compile-time.  The body of the macro must result in an
>   object of the type "syntax object" that represents the generated code.
>
> - You see that I define a variable called "ret-id" which I bind to the
> result
>   of the expression:
>
>     (datum->syntax stx 'return)
>
>   which means "create a syntax object in the same lexical environment as
> stx,
>   and is represented by the symbol 'return'."
>
> - The actual code generation begins within the #`(...) which is a shorthand
>   for (quasisyntax (...)) just like '(...) is short for (quote (...)).  The
>   result of a quasisyntax expression is a syntax object.  Basically, it's
> the
>   most convenient way of creating a syntax object, but like syntax-rules
> it's
>   also hygienic by default and you need to insert "unhygienic" syntax
> objects
>   into it explicitly.
>
> - Within the quasisyntax, I use #,ret-id which is short for (unsyntax
> ret-id)
>   to inject the unhygienic syntax object that holds the symbol 'return'
> into
>   the generated code.
>
> For someone used to macros in the Common Lisp or Elisp style, this may seem
> over-complicated.  It's the cost of the "hygienic by default" behavior.
>
> By the way I assume that you're just toying around with the language to
> learn.
> If you were thinking of using a 'def' macro like this in real code, I would
> discourage it because there's already a built-in mechanism that allows the
> programmer something very similar, called 'let/ec':
>
>   (import (ice-9 control))
>
>   (define (test x)
>     (let/ec return
>       (cond
>         ((= x 3) (return 7))
>         ((= x 2) (return 5)))))
>
> As you see it allows you to define a "return" keyword anywhere, and it
> doesn't need to be part of a function definition, it can appear anywhere.
>
> --
> Taylan
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: return macro
  2021-06-27 23:10 Damien Mattei
@ 2021-06-28  1:15 ` Taylan Kammer
  2021-06-28  8:53   ` Damien Mattei
  2021-09-30  3:37   ` adriano
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Taylan Kammer @ 2021-06-28  1:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Damien Mattei, guile-user

On 28.06.2021 01:10, Damien Mattei wrote:
> hi,
> 
> i wanted to create a macro that is used like a function definition and
> allow return using call/cc:
> 
> (define-syntax def
> (syntax-rules (return)
> ((_ (name args ...) body body* ...)
> (define name (lambda (args ...)
> (call/cc (lambda (return) body body* ...)))))
> ((_ name expr) (define name expr))))
> 
> unfortunaly i got error:
> 
> scheme@(guile-user)> (def (test x) (cond ((= x 3) 7) ((= x 2) (return 5))
> (else 3)))
> ;;; <stdin>:2:42: warning: possibly unbound variable `return'
> scheme@(guile-user)> (test 2)
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> Unbound variable: return
> 
> 
> any idea?

Hi Damien,

This is because of the "hygiene" rule of Scheme, where the notion of "lexical
scope" is taken very seriously: for an identifier to be bound, it must be
visible in the lexical (textual) surroundings where it has been bound.

So for instance, in the following example code:

  (def (test x)
    (cond
     ((= x 3) (return 7))
     ((= x 2) (return 5))))

We can't see a binding for "return" anywhere in the text, therefore it cannot
be bound.

This is good "default" behavior because it makes code more flexible and easier
to understand.

An easy way of overcoming this issue is to let the user explicitly name the
return identifier however they like:

  (define-syntax def
    (syntax-rules ()
      ((_ (name ret arg ...) body body* ...)
       (define (name arg ...)
         (call/cc (lambda (ret) body body* ...))))))

Now you could define:

  (def (test return x)
    (cond
     ((= x 3) (return 7))
     ((= x 2) (return 5))))

Or for instance:

  (def (test blubba x)
    (cond
     ((= x 3) (blubba 7))
     ((= x 2) (blubba 5))))

However, sometimes you're sure that you want to make an implicit binding for
an identifier, and for those cases you need to write an "unhygienic" macro
which can be achieved with the more complex macro system "syntax-case".

Here's how your desired macro could be defined.  I will use identifiers like
"<foo>" just for easier readability; they don't have any special meaning:

  (define-syntax def
    (lambda (stx)
      (syntax-case stx ()
        ((_ (<name> <arg> ...) <body> <body>* ...)
         (let ((ret-id (datum->syntax stx 'return)))
           #`(define (<name> <arg> ...)
               (call/cc (lambda (#,ret-id) <body> <body>* ...))))))))

There's a few things here to take note of:

- Unlike with syntax-rules, the syntax-case is contained in a lambda which
  takes a single argument: a "syntax object" which is passed to syntax-case

- Unlike with syntax-rules, the "body" of the macro (where it begins with a
  'let') is not immediately part of the generated code; that 'let' is actually
  executed during compile-time.  The body of the macro must result in an
  object of the type "syntax object" that represents the generated code.

- You see that I define a variable called "ret-id" which I bind to the result
  of the expression:

    (datum->syntax stx 'return)

  which means "create a syntax object in the same lexical environment as stx,
  and is represented by the symbol 'return'."

- The actual code generation begins within the #`(...) which is a shorthand
  for (quasisyntax (...)) just like '(...) is short for (quote (...)).  The
  result of a quasisyntax expression is a syntax object.  Basically, it's the
  most convenient way of creating a syntax object, but like syntax-rules it's
  also hygienic by default and you need to insert "unhygienic" syntax objects
  into it explicitly.

- Within the quasisyntax, I use #,ret-id which is short for (unsyntax ret-id)
  to inject the unhygienic syntax object that holds the symbol 'return' into
  the generated code.

For someone used to macros in the Common Lisp or Elisp style, this may seem
over-complicated.  It's the cost of the "hygienic by default" behavior.

By the way I assume that you're just toying around with the language to learn.
If you were thinking of using a 'def' macro like this in real code, I would
discourage it because there's already a built-in mechanism that allows the
programmer something very similar, called 'let/ec':

  (import (ice-9 control))

  (define (test x)
    (let/ec return
      (cond
        ((= x 3) (return 7))
        ((= x 2) (return 5)))))

As you see it allows you to define a "return" keyword anywhere, and it
doesn't need to be part of a function definition, it can appear anywhere.

-- 
Taylan



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* return macro
@ 2021-06-27 23:10 Damien Mattei
  2021-06-28  1:15 ` Taylan Kammer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Damien Mattei @ 2021-06-27 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guile-user

hi,

i wanted to create a macro that is used like a function definition and
allow return using call/cc:

(define-syntax def
(syntax-rules (return)
((_ (name args ...) body body* ...)
(define name (lambda (args ...)
(call/cc (lambda (return) body body* ...)))))
((_ name expr) (define name expr))))

unfortunaly i got error:

scheme@(guile-user)> (def (test x) (cond ((= x 3) 7) ((= x 2) (return 5))
(else 3)))
;;; <stdin>:2:42: warning: possibly unbound variable `return'
scheme@(guile-user)> (test 2)
ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Unbound variable: return


any idea?

Damien


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-01  8:37 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-09-30 20:55 return macro dsmich
2021-10-01  8:37 ` adriano
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-06-27 23:10 Damien Mattei
2021-06-28  1:15 ` Taylan Kammer
2021-06-28  8:53   ` Damien Mattei
2021-09-30  3:37   ` adriano
2021-09-30  8:46     ` Damien Mattei
2021-09-30  9:18       ` Stefan Israelsson Tampe

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).