[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: wrapping `define-syntax'

From: Julian Graham
Subject: Re: wrapping `define-syntax'
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:39:15 -0400

Hi Neil,

>> For the purpose of some experiments I've been doing with integrating
>> R6RS libraries, I've been trying to figure out ways to wrap
>> `define-syntax' so that I can do things like add bindings to a
>> module's eval closure before evaluating a macro definition.
> Can you give an example?

Well, in R6RS, the body of `define-syntax' forms is evaluated in a
higher "phase" -- meaning that there are additional bindings visible
while it's being evaluated.  I'm using a dynamically-created module as
the evaluation environment, and I've grouped the phased bindings into
modules that can be temporarily added to the dynamic module's "uses"
list.  So my custom `define-syntax' would look something like:

  (inject-modules-for-phase (current-module) (get-modules-for-phase
  (canonical-define-syntax keyw expr)
  (remove-injected-modules (current-module))

The rationale is that having the modules containing the phased
bindings in the uses list will make them visible in the closures used
by syncase -- which, with Andy's syncase hygiene changes in place,
will lead to the module-relative `@' forms being produced in the
expansion.  (I had a naive version working earlier -- which I attached
to a message to guile-devel -- that wasn't aware of lexical scope, and
I'm trying to rewrite it to rely more on Guile's evaluator.)

> Hmm.  I don't really have much idea... but given that define-syntax is
> syntax, does (define-syntax canonical-define-syntax define-syntax)
> work any better?

Nope: ERROR: invalid syntax define-syntax

> Also does it make any difference if you use use-syntax instead of
> use-modules ?

Nope, doesn't seem to have any effect.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]