From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Enhanced 'warning'
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:59:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87r4i7wo53.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87li92alhe.fsf@karetnikov.org> <874nforp12.fsf@gnu.org>
	<8762015b0w.fsf@karetnikov.org> <874nflx8e3.fsf@gnu.org>
	<871ua85t4w.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87sj2o59zy.fsf@gnu.org>
	<877gjzd4gb.fsf@karetnikov.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48301)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1USvw3-0001dv-Kx
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:00:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1USvw2-0005sR-86
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:00:03 -0400
Received: from [2a01:e0b:1:123:ca0a:a9ff:fe03:271e] (port=34330
	helo=xanadu.aquilenet.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1USvw2-0005m7-14
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:00:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <877gjzd4gb.fsf@karetnikov.org> (Nikita Karetnikov's message of
	"Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:27:48 +0400")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org> skribis:

>> You should reuse the body of the current =E2=80=98warning=E2=80=99 macro=
, though.
>
> What's wrong with this macro?
>
> (define-syntax define-diagnostic
>   (syntax-rules ()
>     ((define-diagnostic name prefix)

Since there=E2=80=99s a single rule, you should use =E2=80=98define-syntax-=
rule=E2=80=99
instead, for conciseness.

>      (define-syntax name
>        (lambda (x)
>          (define (augmented-format-string fmt)
>            (string-append "~:[~*~;guix ~a: ~]~a" (syntax->datum fmt)))
>
>          (syntax-case x (N_ _)                    ; these are literals, y=
eah...
>            ((name (_ fmt) args ...)
>             (string? (syntax->datum #'fmt))
>             (with-syntax ((fmt*   (augmented-format-string #'fmt))
>                           (prefix (datum->syntax x prefix)))
>               #'(format (guix-warning-port) (gettext fmt*)
>                         (program-name) (program-name) prefix
>                         args ...)))
>            ((name (N_ singular plural n) args ...)
>             (and (string? (syntax->datum #'singular))
>                  (string? (syntax->datum #'plural)))
>             (with-syntax ((s      (augmented-format-string #'singular))
>                           (p      (augmented-format-string #'plural))
>                           (prefix (datum->syntax x prefix)))
>               #'(format (guix-warning-port)
>                         (ngettext s p n %gettext-domain)
>                         (program-name) (program-name) prefix
>                         args ...)))))))))
>
> I'm getting the "extra ellipsis in form" error.

This is a macro-generating macro.  In the body of the generated macro,
above, there are 4 occurrences of =E2=80=98...=E2=80=99.  But these ellipse=
s have no
meaning in the outer macro; they are just meaningful in the context of
the generated macro, hence the error.

Instead, you should replace all 4 occurrences with (... ...).

Yes, it=E2=80=99s always surprising at first.  ;-)

Ludo=E2=80=99.