Re: G-Expressions and Scope Preservation

[Chris Marusich]

Hi Ludo,

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello!
>
> Chris Marusich <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> In your paper "Code Staging in GNU Guix" [1], you use the following
>> example to illustrate how G-Expressions are hygienic ("they preserve
>> lexical scope across stages"):
>>
>> (let ((gen-body (lambda (x)
>>                   #~(let ((x 40))
>>                       (+ x #$x)))))
>>   #~(let ((x 2))
>>       #$(gen-body #~x)))
>>
>> You explain that it expands to something like this:
>>
>> (let ((x-1bd8-0 2))
>>   (let ((x-4f05-0 40))
>>     (+ x-4f05-0 x-1bd8-0)))
>>
>> However, when I write this gexp to disk, it doesn't look like that:
>
> Ah ha!  That bit is still in the ‘wip-gexp-hygiene’ branch.
>
> The reason I haven’t merged it, other than I didn’t take the time, is
> that the output depends on Guile’s ‘hash’ function, which is not
> necessarily stable.  Actually, it changed between 2.0 and 2.2, but I
> think it’s the same in 2.2 and 3.0.  This needs to be checked, because
> if it differs, then people will get different results depending on the
> Guile version they use, and that’d be a serious issue.
>
> I thought I had mentioned this before, but apparently not:
>
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-07/msg00181.html
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-09/msg00093.html
>
> We should also do some more testing to make sure nothing breaks.
>
> Ludo’.

Ah!  I see.  That explains it.  Thank you for pointing this out.  I'm
still finalizing my presentation, but if I find time after that, I might
play around with that branch.

-- 
Chris

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature