From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nils Gillmann Subject: Re: my latest blog post Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:39:21 +0000 Message-ID: <20180608093921.fyj3czzlcfdzoov5@abyayala> References: <87bmcmzfyz.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36420) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRDr7-0001h6-WC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 05:38:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRDr6-0000Dt-Pl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 05:38:50 -0400 Received: from conspiracy.of.n0.is ([2a01:4f8:1c0c:7ad0::1]:59240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRDr6-0000AH-FO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 05:38:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Catonano Cc: guix-devel Catonano transcribed 7.7K bytes: > 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 Just my brief encouragement: I'm not sure how active the Guile documentation writer(s) are, but if you know how to write it or initially draft something that would be great. Writing the code is good, but documenting it affects much more people and would be a good outcome of the discussion :) > > 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´t 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