Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers

Show/hide message thread

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Alaric Snell-Pym (12 May 2011 09:29 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Andy Wingo (12 May 2011 10:40 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Alaric Snell-Pym (12 May 2011 11:37 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Jim Rees (12 May 2011 12:37 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Andy Wingo (12 May 2011 14:32 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Alaric Snell-Pym (12 May 2011 15:11 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Aaron W. Hsu (12 May 2011 22:04 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Andy Wingo (12 May 2011 14:31 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Eli Barzilay (12 May 2011 17:51 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Per Bothner (12 May 2011 16:03 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Alaric Snell-Pym (12 May 2011 17:04 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Sztefan Edwards (12 May 2011 17:19 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Per Bothner (12 May 2011 17:27 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Alaric Snell-Pym (13 May 2011 08:23 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Aaron W. Hsu (12 May 2011 22:05 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers Per Bothner 12 May 2011 17:26 UTC

On 05/12/2011 10:03 AM, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
> On 05/12/11 17:02, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>> This solution works pretty well in Kawa, which has good column-level
>> diagnostics.  There are some problems: You can't give a precise
>> position to a symbol in the cdr of a dotted pair - but that is a minor
>> problem since Scheme doesn't allow dotted pairs in non-quoted expressions.
>
> O RLY?
>
> Is (lambda (a b c . rest) ...) not legal?

Well, yes, a lambda is an expression, so to be nit-pickingly
correct I should probably have written "applications" instead
of "expressions".

My point stands: Associating line/column information with
pairs only isn't perfect but it works quite well in practice.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports