[gambit-list] {Spam?} (Marc + ML:) Extension/patch feedback & inclusion request: Practical custom types in the sexp reader (finally)

Adam adam.mlmb at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 15:44:30 EST 2016


What about macro-readenv-filepos-set!, macro-readenv-wrapper,
macro-readenv-unwrapper, macro-readenv-wrapper-set!,
macro-readenv-unwrapper-set!, macro-readenv-wrap?


2016-02-25 3:37 GMT+07:00 Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca>:

> As a solution for the short term, I have moved the
> macro-read-next-char-or-eof and macro-peek-next-char-or-eof macros to
> _io#.scm so that they can be used after an (include "~~lib/_gambit#.scm").
>
> So you should be able to easily implement the extension you want locally.
>
> Marc
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Adam <adam.mlmb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Guillaume is making an excellent point here. (Reposted below with his
> permission.)
> >
> > (To paraphrase him,) I suggest that
> https://github.com/feeley/gambit/pull/180 should be included because it's
> reasonable that users should be able to implement their own hash-sequence
> extensions.
> >
> > We don't need to make a bigger philosophical deal about it than that.
> This is low-level.
> >
> > Also I think all reasonable uses will be about data and not code, and
> therefore they will not need any line numbering or similar info, so the
> unwrapping is fine - or easy access to an unwrapping routine (you choose).
> So finally perhaps the only thing would be to give it a better name, if you
> want that.
> >
> > Please let me know if-when it can be included in Gambit :D
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> >
> > 2016-02-24 21:04 GMT+07:00 Guillaume Cartier <gucartier at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > I think the main thing I'd say is that from my experience, waiting for
> Marc to integrate something into Gambit so as "not to use undocumented
> features", you will wait a long time :) I'd say don't worry too much about
> using undocumented stuff. I think it is actually a wonderful feature that
> Gambit exposes its internal stuff, where in many languages you just don't
> have any access to internals. JazzScheme uses what I'd say is a "healthy"
> mix of mostly documented features and various undocumented features.
> >
> > One reason I say you'll be waiting a long time is that a big design goal
> in Gambit is to *not* go into unclear how best to implement high-level
> features. In this Marc is really in-tune with the old R5RS philosophy,
> which is kinda obvious since he was on the committee :) Regarding that, I
> think Marc should include the low-level part of your code to implement #\
> extensions even if he feels the higher level stuff is unclear.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Adam <adam.mlmb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Guillaume,
> >
> > I trust you are well -
> >
> > if you have any thoughts about the sexp extension ML topic right now
> feel free to tell there,
> >
> > Thanks :)
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/attachments/20160225/cea531ea/attachment.htm>


More information about the Gambit-list mailing list