From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catonano Subject: Re: my latest blog post Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 21:40:11 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bmcmzfyz.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a51600056e1273ea" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fR0la-0006EX-R9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 15:40:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fR0lZ-0003eR-8f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 15:40:14 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]:44121) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fR0lZ-0003cr-1J for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 15:40:13 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p14-v6so3381013ywm.11 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 12:40:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87bmcmzfyz.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel --000000000000a51600056e1273ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark, 2018-06-07 19:03 GMT+02:00 Mark H Weaver : I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this. I wanted to apologize > for making you feel badly; it honestly was not my intent to shame you in > any way. > Thank you for your kind and measured words I appreciate both the tone and the content of your reply I am very reassured by your statement that you find my quuestions about macro expansion reasonable and legitimate My feeling was not positive and I'm only happy of having been wrong > To be honest, I felt a bit defensive when you seemed to contradict my > claim that 'macroexpand-1' would be difficult to implement in a modern > Hygienic macro expander, when you pointed to the Racket documentation > and asked (possibly rhetorically) whether Racket had hygienic macros. > What felt to you like "slight shaming" might have been somehow related > to my feeling defensive about this. > I see On my side, I was a bit adversary because I feel that a macro stepper is a fundamental feature of a scheme system and in Guile it's less than an afterthought I understand that implementing it is too much work But I think that the manual should at least mention macro stepping as a missing feature, it should mention the internal APIs that you indicated in that thread and the uncertainties around them What I want to convey is that the user shouldn't be left in the dark about macro stepping On the bright side, after this discussion, I offer to contribute a paragraph for the manual where the macro stepping missing feature is discussed It will still be a missing feature, but at least the user will know what she needs to know I'd use the enlightening example you provided, the warings you raised and the notions contained in the paragraph about the syntax helpers Probably the part that's not about syntax helpers should be pulled out from there and integrated in the new paragraph > My lack of response until now to your most recent message in that thread > was not because my "patience was exhausted", as you wrote, but only > because I'm stretched far too thin, and I haven't yet figured out how to > respond to your last message. > > I simply don't have enough time for all of the things I'd like to do, so > many important things get dropped on the floor. I respond to user > questions and bug reports sporadically, when I have the time and energy > to do so. It's nothing personal. > I'm so relieved in learning you didn=C2=B4t shrug it Someone else made me notice that the lack of an answer can't always be interpeted as an aggression, as I did in my post. I did, indeed. The lack of an answer hits me, admittedly I apologize for being emotional about this > > For what it's worth, I think that your line of questions about > 'macroexpand-1' was perfectly reasonable, and neither worthy of shame > nor of feeling like an idiot. The details of modern macro expanders are > quite difficult, and I suspect that even seasoned Scheme hackers rarely > understand them in depth. > > Regards, > Mark > thanks --000000000000a51600056e1273ea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,

2018-06-07 19:03 GMT+02:00 Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org<= /a>>:

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this.=C2=A0 I wanted = to apologize
for making you feel badly; it honestly was not my intent to shame you in any way.

Thank you for your kind and me= asured words
I appreciate both the tone and the content of yo= ur reply

I am very reassured by your statement that you f= ind my quuestions about macro expansion reasonable and legitimate

My feeling was not positive and I'm only happy of having been = wrong
=C2=A0
To be honest, I felt a bit defensive when you seemed to contradict my
claim that 'macroexpand-1' would be difficult to implement in a mod= ern
Hygienic macro expander, when you pointed to the Racket documentation
and asked (possibly rhetorically) whether Racket had hygienic macros.
What felt to you like "slight shaming" might have been somehow re= lated
to my feeling defensive about this.

I s= ee

On my side, I was a bit adversary because I feel that = a macro stepper is a fundamental feature of a scheme system and in Guile it= 's less than an afterthought

I understand that implem= enting it is too much work

But I think that the manual sh= ould at least mention macro stepping as a missing feature, it should mentio= n the internal APIs that you indicated in that thread and the uncertainties= around them

What I want to convey is that the user shoul= dn't be left in the dark about macro stepping

On the = bright side, after this discussion, I offer to contribute a paragraph for t= he manual where the macro stepping missing feature is discussed

It will still be a missing feature, but at least the user will know = what she needs to know

I'd use the enlight= ening example you provided, the warings you raised and the notions containe= d in the paragraph about the syntax helpers

Probably the = part that's not about syntax helpers should be pulled out from there an= d integrated in the new paragraph
=C2=A0


My lack of response until now to your most recent message in that thread was not because my "patience was exhausted", as you wrote, but on= ly
because I'm stretched far too thin, and I haven't yet figured out h= ow to
respond to your last message.

I simply don't have enough time for all of the things I'd like to d= o, so
many important things get dropped on the floor.=C2=A0 I respond to user
questions and bug reports sporadically, when I have the time and energy
to do so.=C2=A0 It's nothing personal.

<= div>I'm so relieved in learning you didn=C2=B4t shrug it

<= div>Someone else made me notice that the lack of an answer can't always= be interpeted as an aggression, as I did in my post.

I d= id, indeed.

The lack of an answer hits me, admittedly
=
I apologize for being emotional about this
=C2= =A0

For what it's worth, I think that your line of questions about
'macroexpand-1' was perfectly reasonable, and neither worthy of sha= me
nor of feeling like an idiot.=C2=A0 The details of modern macro expanders a= re
quite difficult, and I suspect that even seasoned Scheme hackers rarely
understand them in depth.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Regards,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Mark


thanks
--000000000000a51600056e1273ea--