Re: syntax? in kawa/scheme

[Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@oca.eu>]

but in fact testing the string representation is enought for me as i 
need only to test for operators such as #'* #'+....

indeed only Racket has a good syntax? procedure:

Welcome to DrRacket, version 8.12 [cs].
Language: racket, with debugging; memory limit: 8192 MB.

 > (syntax? #'(2 * 3))
#t

someone answered me about syntax? for Guile being in (system syntax) but 
it works well only on atomic expression:

scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (system syntax))
scheme@(guile-user)> syntax?
$1 = #<procedure syntax? (_)>
scheme@(guile-user)> (syntax? #'(2 * 3))
$2 = #f


this is not the good result (above)

as:

scheme@(guile-user)> #'(2 * 3)
$3 = (#<syntax:unknown file:6:3 2> #<syntax:unknown file:6:5 *> 
#<syntax:unknown file:6:7 3>)
scheme@(guile-user)> (syntax? #'*)
$4 = #t

scheme@(guile-user)> (syntax? *)
$6 = #f


but if someone explain me how to  'check if an object implements 
kawa.lang.SyntaxForm' i can do that?

perheaps with an exception....


Damien

Le 14/05/2024 à 00:20, Damien Mattei a écrit :
> Ce message provient d’un expéditeur externe à l’université (adresse : 
> kawa-bounces+damien.mattei=unice.fr@sourceware.org). Ne cliquez pas 
> sur les liens et n’ouvrez pas les pièces jointes si vous ne connaissez 
> pas l’expéditeur ou que vous n’êtes pas sûr du contenu. En cas de 
> doute, merci de transférer le mail à abuse@univ-cotedazur.fr
>
> i modify a SRFI 105  curly infix parser to move some function towards 
> macro, then to pre-parse the code on the fly at the pre-compil stage 
> of the macro,then use the pre-parsed code in the expansion phase. 
> Finally the run-time execution of the generated code will be faster as 
> no parsing will be done at this run-time phase. (exmple : a mathematic 
> formula is known and will not change at run-time ,the infix to prefix 
> operator precedence algorithm can be applied before runtime) . Prior i 
> parsed s-expr now it will be syntax expression, the logic is the same 
> but the code will change, instead of procedure or quoted procedures or 
> form it will be syntax objects. For the operator precedence i need to 
> be able to compare equality of some operator in a syntaxic form (like 
> #'*, #'+ etc...) I admit as there is no native curly-infix srfi 105 in 
> kawa it is already done by a parser in command line. (this more easy 
> in Guile but very few scheme implement SRFI 105 anyway so i will reuse 
> this code in the future)
>
> Le 13/05/2024 à 23:47, Per Bothner a écrit :
>> Ce message provient d’un expéditeur externe à l’université (adresse : 
>> per@bothner.com). Ne cliquez pas sur les liens et n’ouvrez pas les 
>> pièces jointes si vous ne connaissez pas l’expéditeur ou que vous 
>> n’êtes pas sûr du contenu. En cas de doute, merci de transférer le 
>> mail à abuse@univ-cotedazur.fr
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/24 1:36 PM, Damien Mattei wrote:
>>> but in fact my problem is to test equality for 2 syntax object and i 
>>> can not use equal? :
>>
>> Why? What are you actually trying to do?