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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 93 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 93 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: srfi-93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Fresh syntax and unintentional capture*From*: Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:18:00 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: srfi-93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As I tried to argue in SRFI 72, unless fresh syntax is the default, it is easy to reproduce in syntax-case all the unintentional capture problems that hygienic macros were invented to solve in the first place. If we have to remember to use generate-temporaries in these cases, that is equivalent to the old problem of remembering to use gensym, which is no progress at all. I have run into these capture problems with syntax-case, and they can be extremely difficult to debug - probably more so than defmacro where at least one expects them. The problems do not occur only in library helpers, but also in quite ordinary syntax-case macros. In fact, the Chez Scheme COND and CASE macros are almost wrong, as I discuss below, but here are some simpler examples first: (let-syntax ((main (lambda (_) (define (help) (syntax (list 1 2))) (with-syntax ((rest (help))) (syntax (let ((list +)) rest)))))) (main)) ==> 3 with conventional model ==> (1 2) with fresh syntax default (let-syntax ((main (lambda (form) (define (make-swap x y) (quasisyntax (let ((t #,x)) (set! #,x #,y) (set! #,y t)))) (quasisyntax (let ((s 1) (t 2)) #,(make-swap (syntax s) (syntax t)) (list s t)))))) (main)) ==> (1 2) with conventional hygiene algorithm As mentioned, the full COND and CASE macros in the Chez Scheme user's guide are "almost wrong". By this I mean that the template they follow will lead to incorrect macros in general: (define-syntax cond (lambda (x) (syntax-case x () [(_ c1 c2 ...) (let f ([c1 #'c1] [cmore #'(c2 ...)]) (if (null? cmore) ....... ....... (with-syntax ([rest (f (car cmore) (cdr cmore))]) (syntax-case c1 (=>) [(e0) #'(let ([t e0]) (if t t rest))] [(e0 => e1) #'(let ([t e0]) (if t (e1 t) rest))] [(e0 e1 e2 ...) #'(if e0 (begin e1 e2 ...) rest)]))))]))) Since it introduces the same identifier t recursively in nested LET forms, this macro is only "accidentally correct", since no references to t occur further down in REST. If any had, they could have been captured. This example is written in the same style as COND, but turns out to be wrong due to unintentional capture: (define-syntax let-in-order (lambda (form) (syntax-case form () ((_ ((i e) ...) e0 e1 ...) (let f ((ies (syntax ((i e) ...))) (its '())) (syntax-case ies () (() (quasisyntax (let #,its e0 e1 ...))) (((i e) . ies) (with-syntax ((rest (f (syntax ies) (cons (syntax (i t)) its)))) (syntax (let ((t e)) rest)))))))))) (let-in-order ((x 1) (y 2)) (+ x y)) ==> 4 (wrong) [with conventional algorithm] ==> Error: unbound identifier t [with fresh syntax]

(let ((t 1)) (let ((t 2)) (let ((x t) (y t)) (+ x y))))

These issues were not relevant for SYNTAX-RULES, but they should be addressed in a procedural system in a way that does not rely on generate-temporaries, which is as unreliable as the old gensym macros. Regards Andre

- Prev by Date:
**Internal Definitions** - Next by Date:
**Re: testsuite needed** - Previous by thread:
**Internal Definitions** - Next by thread:
**Re: Fresh syntax and unintentional capture** - Index(es):