guile and XML (mixp)

guile and XML (mixp)

[Paul Emsley]

Anyone using mixp and can help out here?


$ [configure/make/make install all clean]
$ cd test
$ guile-expat test-mixp.scm
/xxx/guile/1.6/ice-9/syncase.scm:130:16: In procedure scm-error in expression (scm-error (quote misc-error) who ...):
/xxx/share/guile/1.6/ice-9/syncase.scm:130:16: invalid syntax ()

$ guile --version
Guile 1.6.7

using mixp-0.4

Cheers, 

Paul.




_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[Neil Jerram]

Paul Emsley <emsley@ysbl.york.ac.uk> writes:

> Anyone using mixp and can help out here?
>
>
> $ [configure/make/make install all clean]
> $ cd test
> $ guile-expat test-mixp.scm
> /xxx/guile/1.6/ice-9/syncase.scm:130:16: In procedure scm-error in expression (scm-error (quote misc-error) who ...):
> /xxx/share/guile/1.6/ice-9/syncase.scm:130:16: invalid syntax ()
>
> $ guile --version
> Guile 1.6.7
>
> using mixp-0.4

Whoever is doing (use-modules (ice-9 syncase)) needs to do (use-syntax
(ice-9 syncase)) instead.

Regards,
     Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[Jon Wilson]

Hi Neil,
> Whoever is doing (use-modules (ice-9 syncase)) needs to do (use-syntax
> (ice-9 syncase)) instead.
>   
I see this fairly often.  Perhaps there should be some little widget in
(ice-9 syncase) which says "If you try to use=modules me, you will
actually get use-syntax instead.).  Or could an argument be made for
combining use-modules and use-syntax?  Are there any cases where one
would write a module, and then at some times want to use-modules it, and
at other times want to use-syntax it, so that the user would need to
specify which one was wanted?

Regards,
Jon



_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[Neil Jerram]

Jon Wilson <j85wilson@fastmail.fm> writes:

> Hi Neil,
>> Whoever is doing (use-modules (ice-9 syncase)) needs to do (use-syntax
>> (ice-9 syncase)) instead.
>>
> I see this fairly often.  Perhaps there should be some little widget
> in (ice-9 syncase) which says "If you try to use=modules me, you will
> actually get use-syntax instead.).  Or could an argument be made for
> combining use-modules and use-syntax?  Are there any cases where one
> would write a module, and then at some times want to use-modules it,
> and at other times want to use-syntax it, so that the user would need
> to specify which one was wanted?

It's conceivable, but probably quite unlikely.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a module automagically switching its
user's intent from use-module to use-syntax.  That feels too
non-explicit to me.

What seems very reasonable, however, would be a way for a module to
discover whether it is being loaded for use-syntax or use-module, so
that it can emit a warning, or even signal an error, if the use is
inappropriate.

Perhaps something like this...

 (define-module (ice-9 syncase)
   ...
   #:use-hook my-use-hook)

 (define (my-use-hook usage)
   (or (eq? usage #:use-syntax)
       (error "The (ice-9 syncase) module should always be used by
   calling (use-syntax ...), not (use-modules ...)")))

 ...

Does that sound reasonable?

Regards,
     Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[Jon Wilson]

Hi Neil,
> What seems very reasonable, however, would be a way for a module to
> discover whether it is being loaded for use-syntax or use-module, so
> that it can emit a warning, or even signal an error, if the use is
> inappropriate.
>
> Perhaps something like this...
>
>  (define-module (ice-9 syncase)
>    ...
>    #:use-hook my-use-hook)
>
>  (define (my-use-hook usage)
>    (or (eq? usage #:use-syntax)
>        (error "The (ice-9 syncase) module should always be used by
>    calling (use-syntax ...), not (use-modules ...)")))
>
>  ...
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
>   
Sounds great to me.
Regards,
Jon


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> What seems very reasonable, however, would be a way for a module to
> discover whether it is being loaded for use-syntax or use-module, so
> that it can emit a warning, or even signal an error, if the use is
> inappropriate.
>
> Perhaps something like this...
>
>  (define-module (ice-9 syncase)
>    ...
>    #:use-hook my-use-hook)
>
>  (define (my-use-hook usage)
>    (or (eq? usage #:use-syntax)
>        (error "The (ice-9 syncase) module should always be used by
>    calling (use-syntax ...), not (use-modules ...)")))
>
>  ...
>
> Does that sound reasonable?

I'm not sure extending `define-module' just to solve this specific
problem is a good idea.  In particular, `use-syntax' itself doesn't seem
too reasonable (see [0]).  Thus, in the long-term, it may be preferable
to remove `use-syntax' or replace it with more robust primitives, rather
than working around it.

Thanks,
Ludovic.

[0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2006-07/msg00019.html


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[Dale P. Smith]

ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
>> What seems very reasonable, however, would be a way for a module to
>> discover whether it is being loaded for use-syntax or use-module, so
>> that it can emit a warning, or even signal an error, if the use is
>> inappropriate.
>>
>
> I'm not sure extending `define-module' just to solve this specific
> problem is a good idea.  In particular, `use-syntax' itself doesn't seem
> too reasonable (see [0]).  Thus, in the long-term, it may be preferable
> to remove `use-syntax' or replace it with more robust primitives, rather
> than working around it.

I suspect that the sole purpose of use-syntax was to allow the use of
syntax-case macros instead of the non-standard lisp style macros that
are the default.  I don't think it was ever intended to be generally
useful.

Long term, Guile should probably have syntax-case macros available
without having to resort to use-syntax.

   -Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith



_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: guile and XML (mixp)

[dsmich]

---- Paul Emsley <emsley@ysbl.york.ac.uk> wrote: 
> 
> Anyone using mixp and can help out here?
> 
> 
> $ [configure/make/make install all clean]
> $ cd test
> $ guile-expat test-mixp.scm
> /xxx/guile/1.6/ice-9/syncase.scm:130:16: In procedure scm-error in expression (scm-error (quote misc-error) who ...):
> /xxx/share/guile/1.6/ice-9/syncase.scm:130:16: invalid syntax ()

The fix for this has been in cvs for about 2 years.  I guess it's time for a release!

-Dale


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user