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

Re: Opaque syntax objects

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 72 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 72 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  Mike Sperber wrote:
>  > 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
>  > extensible.
>  I would differ on "trivially" ;-)  Reading through the psyntax implementation,
>  I think complexity would be pretty much conserved no matter how you do it.

I'm not sure I understand: Last I looked, the psyntax implementation
had no source-location tracking at all.  Also, I don't think Chez's
implementation tracks the location of compound expressions.  How does
this allow you inferences about the complexity of implementing it?

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