[Texmacs-dev] Re: [TeXmacs] macros, passing paramaters to with, and using includes

[Henri Lesourd]

Corey Sweeney wrote:

> On 3/8/06, Henri Lesourd <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     Corey Sweeney wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>     But this one *still* doesn't work, due to address@hidden problems of
>     symbol encoding (for the symbol ">" in "tree->string"...), because
>     we want to write the Scheme code directly inside the TeXmacs <extern>
>     markup (the clean alternative solution would be to write a Scheme
>     plugin where we could safely write our Scheme functions. But then
>     we would have to deal with the current bug in the recently implemented
>     lazy evaluation of Scheme plugins ; I'm afraid that discussing this
>     would lead us even farther in designing hacks...).
>
>     Thus we need to trick it ; the following way works :
>     [[
>        <macro|inc0|<macro|x|<extern|(lambda (x) (tree-load-inclusion
>          ((eval-string (string-append "tree-" (substring ">" 4 5)
>     "stree"))
>          x)))|<arg|x>>>
>     ]]
>
>
>
> Great idea.  I had been adding "(define tree-to-stree tree->stree)" to 
> my startup scheme libaries.  Now I decided to one up you and abstract it:
>
> (define horrible-scheme-hack-fun
>   (lambda (some-symbol)
>     (string->symbol
>        (list->string
>          (map (lambda (char)
>                     (if (equal? char #\} )
>                        #\>
>                        char))
>                  (string->list (symbol->string some-symbol)))))))
>
> Of course, you'll probalby just one up me back and make it a macro :)
>
> Wanna toss something like this in the texmacs scheme libraries?  then 
> we could change yoru code to:
>
>
> [[
>    <macro|inc0|<macro|x|<extern|
>        (lambda (x) (tree-load-inclusion  ((horrible-scheme-hack 
> `tree-}stree) x)))|<arg|x>>>
>  ]]
>
> which would seem easier to read.  The charactor could be something 
> other then }, let's just make a "hacking standard" so everyone uses 
> the same char till another solution presents it'self.
Yes, we need something like that if we want to be able to write
any Scheme function name containing '<' or '>' inside TeXmacs
macros. Another cleaner solution would be to define synonyms
for the offending functions, for example "tree2stree" as an
equivalent of "tree->stree", etc. in your 
.TeXmacs/progs/my-init-texmacs.scm,
but this solution is less general, then...