[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Backquote simplification
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: Backquote simplification |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:03:48 +0100 |
On 11 Dec 2010, at 00:12, Neil Jerram wrote:
[Your reply does not seem to be on the list, so I cc it.]
Thanks. I might try an iterated cons, that is a function f such such
that
(f x1 ... xk y) --> (cons x1 ... (cons xk y) ...))
Isn't that just `list'?
More generally: I've been reading your emails, but I'm afraid I have
no
idea what you are trying to do. Perhaps you could step back and
explain
that overall, before continuing with details.
The reply I got was helpful, but I decided to settle for a macro
implementation:
(use-syntax (ice-9 syncase))
(define-syntax tuple
(syntax-rules ()
((tuple xs ...)
`(tuple ,xs ...))
((tuple x1 x2 . y)
(append `(tuple ,x1 ,x2) y))
((tuple x1 . y)
(append `(tuple ,x1) y))
))
It behaves as I want in my context, a functional language on top of
Guile. I decided to implement the construct (lambda (x_1 ... x_k . y)
f) using an improper list (x_1 ... x_k . y); when it is a proper list,
one just gets the fixed number of arguments construct.
Then the object (x_1 ... x_k . y) also become available, so it is
possible to form
(define f (lambda (x_1 ... x_k . y) (x_1 ... x_k . y)))
Then one would expect f(a_1, ..., a_n), for n >= k, to be (a_1, ...,
a_n) - this a form of the identity.
So to get this effect, I need a function g that can call improper
lists (g x_1, ..., x_k . y), where y is a list. For some reason, the
substitution of the list y to get a list for the function g does not
work in this situation, exception for the macro definition above, g =
tuple.
Then, there is another problem with this macro: if having the ".", one
cannot have "...", like would be needed say when implementing (define
(f x_1 ... x_k . y) ...) expanding to (define f (lambda (x_1 ... x_k .
y) ...) for any k. That is, the following isn't legal:
(define-syntax tuple
(syntax-rules ()
((tuple xs ...)
`(tuple ,xs ...))
((tuple xs ... . y)
`(tuple ,xs ... . ,y))
))
But if it would have been, it would produce what I want.
- Backquote simplification, Hans Aberg, 2010/12/09
- Message not available
- Re: Backquote simplification, Hans Aberg, 2010/12/09
- Re: Backquote simplification, Neil Jerram, 2010/12/10
- Re: Backquote simplification,
Hans Aberg <=
- Re: Backquote simplification, Neil Jerram, 2010/12/10
- Re: Backquote simplification, Hans Aberg, 2010/12/11
- Re: Backquote simplification, Neil Jerram, 2010/12/11
- Re: Backquote simplification, Hans Aberg, 2010/12/11