Re: Fixing the slib mess

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:
> It looks to me like your current implementation of 'syntax-toplevel?'
> is actually testing for a top-level _syntactic_ environment, but what
> you ought to be testing for here is slightly different.

You are absolutely right.  Thank you for spotting this.  Unfortunately
my scheming knowledge is a bit rusty.

> I'm not sure whether the wrap contains enough information to determine that.

I don't think it does either.

> It might be easier to handle this with 'define-syntax-parameter' and
> 'syntax-parameterize'.  The idea would be that within slib, 'define'
> would be a syntax parameter.  Its default expansion would turn it into
> 'define-public', and also parameterize 'define' to mean 'base:define'
> within the body.  If needed, you could also define 'let' and maybe some
> other things to parameterize 'define' within the body.
>
> Another option would be to make 'export' a syntax parameter, and
> parameterize it to a no-op within lexical contours such as 'define' and
> 'let'.
>
> What do you think?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this involve re-defining the
syntax for all forms with bodies (in order to introduce the
syntax-parameterize form)?

> I happen to be working on the reader lately.  Would it help to implement
> SRFI-58 in our reader?

While I think SRFI-58 support is great, I don't think slib needs it
because it doesn't, to my knowledge, use read syntax.