[parenscript-devel] Bug: macroexpansion broken by lexical scoping change

[Daniel Gackle]

Oops sorry, I must have neglected to clean some fasls.

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach at gmail.com> wrote:

> Start with a clean Lisp image or set *ps-macro-toplevel* to an empty
> hash table - that error is due to the fact that the PS internal macro
> representations have changed.
>
> Vladimir
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Gackle <danielgackle at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Given the recent bug fixes, I tried to upgrade PS again. I'm now
> > encountering an error on trying to expand a simple loop form. The error
> > appears in commit 5a69278.
> >
> > (ps-macroexpand '(loop for x from 1 below 10 do (bah)))
> >
> > =>
> > (NIL . #<Anonymous Function #x300042319FEF>) is not of type (OR
> >                                                              SYMBOL
> >                                                              FUNCTION),
> and
> > can't be FUNCALLed or APPLYed
> > [Condition of type TYPE-ERROR]
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just pushed out a patch that fixes this. The solution turned out to be
> >> a lot more involved than I originally suspected - basically the PS
> >> compiler had to be refactored to give control of macroexpansion over
> >> to special forms (the way it was previously handling macroexpansion
> >> was quite naive, but would have been suitable for a single-namespace
> >> Lisp).
> >>
> >> The changes that have been going on in the recent while are starting
> >> to make Parenscript almost look like a "real Lisp compiler."
> >>
> >> Vladimir
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Daniel Gackle <danielgackle at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Here's one thing that the latest PS breaks in our code.
> >> >
> >> > (ps (list 1 2 3))
> >> > =>
> >> > "[1,2,3];"
> >> >
> >> > (ps (let ((list nil))
> >> >           (setf list (list 1 2 3))))
> >> > =>
> >> > "var list5180 = null;
> >> > list5180 = list5180(1, 2, 3);"
> >> >
> >> > I think this behavior is incorrect. It is quite surprising for a
> lexical
> >> > variable to shadow a macro definition.
> >> >
> >> > Daniel
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > parenscript-devel mailing list
> >> > parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> >> > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> parenscript-devel mailing list
> >> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> >> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > parenscript-devel mailing list
> > parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/parenscript-devel/attachments/20090510/7d1750ea/attachment.html>