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.
[Resending. First attempt never got through.] Thanks to everyone for their hard work on SRFI 93 and on the R6RS process. It's great to see how much care is being put into improving Scheme. I have a few comments and questions: * The abstract says that the design "...also supports source-object correlation, i.e., the maintenance of ties between the original source code and expanded output, allowing implementations to provide source-level support for debuggers and other tools." However, I didn't see anything later in the document that describes this. Did you mean only that the representation of syntax objects is up to the implementation, and that the implementation can therefore maintain additional information like source-object correlation?" If so, the SRFI document should mention that somewhere. It would be great if, perhaps in a later SRFI, a standard could be created for accessing and manipulating this information. * In this paragraph in section 3.1, "references" should be "referenced:" Expansion of each variable definition right-hand side is deferred until after all of the definitions have been seen so that each keyword and variable references within the right-hand side resolves to the local binding, if any. * Also in section 3.1, this expression: (lambda (x) (define-syntax defun (syntax-rules () [(_ (x . a) e) (define x (lambda a e))])) (defun (even? n) (or (= n 0) (odd? (- n 1)))) (define-syntax odd? (syntax-rules () [(_ n) (not (even? n))])) (odd? (if (odd? x) (* x x) x))) is said to expand to this: (lambda (x) (letrec* ([even? (lambda (n) (or (= n 0) (not (even? (- n 1)))))]) (even? x))) What happened to the squaring operation? Shouldn't the expansion be this?: (lambda (x) (letrec* ([even? (lambda (n) (or (= n 0) (not (even? (- n 1)))))]) (not (even? (if (not (even? x)) (* x x) x))))) * Near the end of section 3.5, the third bulleted item is: a nonlist, novector, nonsymbol value, or "Novector" should be "nonvector." * In section 3.6, the paragraph describing ellipses says, "otherwise, the expander would not be able to determine how many times the subform should be repeated in the output." I've never understood precisely how Scheme macro systems decide how many expansions to do for a particular use of ellipses in the output template. I can usually intuit what will happen, but I've never had a concrete understanding of the algorithm. Would it be possible to expand on the algorithm here to make it absolutely clear? For example, in the definition of `case' that follows in that section, how are the ellipses that I've marked "question" below expanded? Both `k' and `e2' are followed by ellipses in the pattern, and both appear in the template expression there. How do we know to expand the template expression once per that particular part of the pattern? (define-syntax case (lambda (x) (syntax-case x (else) [(_ e0 [(k ...) e1 e2 ...] ... [else else-e1 else-e2 ...]) #'(let ([t e0]) (cond [(memv t '(k ...)) e1 e2 ...] ... ;; question [else else-e1 else-e2 ...]))] [(_ e0 [(ka ...) e1a e2a ...] [(kb ...) e1b e2b ...] ...) #'(let ([t e0]) (cond [(memv t '(ka ...)) e1a e2a ...] [(memv t '(kb ...)) e1b e2b ...] ...))]))) I apologize if I'm missing something obvious. I would love to see this expanded in the design document, even a little. * In section 3.10, a definition is given for `identifier-syntax', but the first clause appears to be missing a call to `make-variable-transformer', which I've added here: (define-syntax identifier-syntax (syntax-rules (set!) [(_ e) (make-variable-transformer ;; Should this be added? (lambda (x) (syntax-case x () [id (identifier? #'id) #'e] [(_ x (... ...)) #'(e x (... ...))])))] [(_ (id exp1) ((set! var val) exp2)) (and (identifier? #'id) (identifier? #'var)) (make-variable-transformer (lambda (x) (syntax-case x (set!) [(set! var val) #'exp2] [(id x (... ...)) #'(exp1 x (... ...))] [id (identifier? #'id) #'exp1])))])) * I like the name changes described in section 5.2. Thanks again for all the hard work. I'm eager to see R6RS!