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

Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate

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.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Andrew Wilcox wrote:

I see in the email archives that this feature is controversial.  From
the discussion I understand the following:


That's an excellent summary.

Thus my question is: does PLT Scheme have syntax location features
that this SRFI proposal is not able to provide?

There is one that it would in principle be able to provide but chooses not to: The SRFI proposal requires the first argument of datum->syntax-object to be an identifier, as indeed Chez does, while PLT allows an arbitrary syntax object there.

There is no fundamental reason why this cannot be supported, but it would make the reference implementation more complex. Also, I don't know how useful this feature really is in practice.