[bug#60225] [PATCH] records: match-record supports specifying a different variable name.

[bug#60225] [PATCH] records: match-record supports specifying a different variable name.

[Attila Lendvai]

An example:

(match-record obj <my-type>
  (field1 (field2 custom-var-name) field3)
  ...)
---
 guix/records.scm | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/records.scm b/guix/records.scm
index 13463647c8..0b2487a156 100644
--- a/guix/records.scm
+++ b/guix/records.scm
@@ -592,13 +592,16 @@ (define-syntax lookup-field
 (define-syntax match-record-inner
   (lambda (s)
     (syntax-case s ()
-      ((_ record type (field rest ...) body ...)
-       #`(let-syntax ((field-offset (syntax-rules ()
+      ((_ record type ((field-name variable-name) rest ...) body ...)
+       #'(let-syntax ((field-offset (syntax-rules ()
 			              ((_ f)
-                                       (lookup-field field 0 f)))))
+                                       (lookup-field field-name 0 f)))))
            (let* ((offset (type map-fields field-offset))
-                  (field  (struct-ref record offset)))
+                  (variable-name (struct-ref record offset)))
              (match-record-inner record type (rest ...) body ...))))
+      ((_ record type (field rest ...) body ...)
+       ;; Redirect to the canonical form above.
+       #'(match-record-inner record type ((field field) rest ...) body ...))
       ((_ record type () body ...)
        #'(begin body ...)))))
 
-- 
2.35.1

[bug#60225] [PATCH] records: match-record supports specifying a different variable name.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> skribis:

> An example:
>
> (match-record obj <my-type>
>   (field1 (field2 custom-var-name) field3)
>   ...)

Nice!  It looks like a useful extension to me.

> -      ((_ record type (field rest ...) body ...)
> -       #`(let-syntax ((field-offset (syntax-rules ()
> +      ((_ record type ((field-name variable-name) rest ...) body ...)
> +       #'(let-syntax ((field-offset (syntax-rules ()

I’d just drop ‘-name’, it’s all names anyway.  :-)

Could you also add a test in ‘tests/records.scm’ next to the others?

TIA,
Ludo’.

[bug#60225] [PATCH v2 1/2] records: match-record supports specifying a different variable name.

[Attila Lendvai]

An example:

(match-record obj <my-type>
  (field1 (field2 custom-var-name) field3)
  ...)

* guix/records.scm (match-record-inner): Add support for the new syntax.
* tests/records.scm ("match-record, simple"): Add a simple test case for the
new syntax.
---
 guix/records.scm  | 9 ++++++---
 tests/records.scm | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/records.scm b/guix/records.scm
index 13463647c8..1f097c7108 100644
--- a/guix/records.scm
+++ b/guix/records.scm
@@ -592,13 +592,16 @@ (define-syntax lookup-field
 (define-syntax match-record-inner
   (lambda (s)
     (syntax-case s ()
-      ((_ record type (field rest ...) body ...)
-       #`(let-syntax ((field-offset (syntax-rules ()
+      ((_ record type ((field variable) rest ...) body ...)
+       #'(let-syntax ((field-offset (syntax-rules ()
 			              ((_ f)
                                        (lookup-field field 0 f)))))
            (let* ((offset (type map-fields field-offset))
-                  (field  (struct-ref record offset)))
+                  (variable (struct-ref record offset)))
              (match-record-inner record type (rest ...) body ...))))
+      ((_ record type (field rest ...) body ...)
+       ;; Redirect to the canonical form above.
+       #'(match-record-inner record type ((field field) rest ...) body ...))
       ((_ record type () body ...)
        #'(begin body ...)))))
 
diff --git a/tests/records.scm b/tests/records.scm
index 8504c8d5a5..b1203dfeb7 100644
--- a/tests/records.scm
+++ b/tests/records.scm
@@ -540,8 +540,8 @@ (define-record-type* <foo> foo make-foo
             (first second)
             (list first second))
           (match-record (foo (first 'a) (second 'b)) <foo>
-            (second first)
-            (list first second)))))
+            (second (first first/new-var))
+            (list first/new-var second)))))
 
 (test-equal "match-record, unknown field"
   'syntax-error
-- 
2.35.1

[bug#60225] [PATCH v2 2/2] tests: records: Add a failing test for match-record.

[Attila Lendvai]

* tests/records.scm ("match-record, syntactic interference"): New failing test.
---

i'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like a bug to me.

i've experienced this in real code, and the error message was
not very helpful.

 tests/records.scm | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/records.scm b/tests/records.scm
index b1203dfeb7..8a48e2fd07 100644
--- a/tests/records.scm
+++ b/tests/records.scm
@@ -561,4 +561,27 @@ (define-record-type* <foo> foo make-foo
             (make-fresh-user-module)))
     (lambda (key . args) key)))
 
+(test-expect-fail 1)
+(test-equal "match-record, syntactic interference"
+  '(1 2)
+  (begin
+    (define* (make-form #:optional (bindings '()))
+      `(begin
+         (use-modules (guix records))
+
+         (let ((first 42))              ; here it does not interfere
+           (define-record-type* <foo> foo make-foo
+             foo?
+             (first  foo-first (default 1))
+             (second foo-second))
+
+           (let (,@bindings)            ; but here it does interfere
+             (match-record (foo (second 2)) <foo>
+               (first second)
+               (list first second))))))
+    ;; This works fine.
+    (eval (make-form) (make-fresh-user-module))
+    ;; But this fails, although I think it shouldn't.
+    (eval (make-form '((second 43))) (make-fresh-user-module))))
+
 (test-end)
-- 
2.35.1

bug#60225: [PATCH] records: match-record supports specifying a different variable name.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> skribis:

> An example:
>
> (match-record obj <my-type>
>   (field1 (field2 custom-var-name) field3)
>   ...)
>
> * guix/records.scm (match-record-inner): Add support for the new syntax.
> * tests/records.scm ("match-record, simple"): Add a simple test case for the
> new syntax.

Applied, thanks!

Ludo’.

[bug#60225] [PATCH] records: match-record supports specifying a different variable name.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> skribis:

> * tests/records.scm ("match-record, syntactic interference"): New failing test.
> ---
>
> i'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like a bug to me.

[...]

> +           (let (,@bindings)            ; but here it does interfere
> +             (match-record (foo (second 2)) <foo>
> +               (first second)
> +               (list first second))))))

This has to do with how macro “literals” are matched (info "(guile)
Syntax Rules"):

     A literal matches an input expression if the input expression is an
  identifier with the same name as the literal, and both are unbound(1).

     Although literals can be unbound, usually they are bound to allow
  them to be imported, exported, and renamed.  *Note Modules::, for more
  information on imports and exports.  In Guile there are a few standard
  auxiliary syntax definitions, as specified by R6RS and R7RS:

In the example above, the ‘let’ binding for ‘second’ was shadowing the
other ‘second’.

(I think this was recently discussed on guix-devel or something.)

Ludo’.