[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Opaque syntax objects

Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  Hi Mike, thanks for the comments.
>  > I'd like to suggest that compound expressions be represented by an
>  > opaque type rather than by pairs.  This would ensure a modicum of
>  > abstraction, and would *really* make comprehensive the ability of all
>  > syntax objects to carry location information.  
>  The current representation does allow source tracking for compound syntax
>  objects.  One would make the reader put the location of each node (pair or 
>  vector) in a hash table.  Each evaluation of a SYNTAX or QUASISYNTAX form
>  can do likewise.  Since pairs keep their identity during expansion, 
>  location information for every node (and identifier leaf) can always be 
>  looked up in the hash table at any stage of the expansion.  

[Sorry for replying out of order.]

You mean in a global hash table?  That's a hack around the lack of a
field in the syntax objects.  To make it work efficiently, you'd have
to bring weakness in---a lot of machinery to duplicate functionality
that would trivially work if syntax objects were abstract and thus

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla