[parenscript-devel] Skipping null returns at the top level.

[Vladimir Sedach]

Hi Yong,

On what forms does ps-compile-stream fail? I'm using this as a test:

(with-input-from-string (s "(progn
    (defmacro macro-null-toplevel ()
      nil)
    (macro-null-toplevel))")
      (ps-compile-stream s))

Vladimir


2010/2/3 szergling <senatorzergling at gmail.com>:
> On 2/1/10, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just pushed a patch that should do the right thing; take a look.
>
> That works, but the functionality is missing from ps-compile-stream
> (and therefore ps-compile-file), so I've added this too (see patch for
> inspiration, or if it's acceptable/modifiable, merge?).
>
> I also wonder if (in case I wasn't clear in my original email) this
> actually makes more "sense" for parenscript?
>
> (lambda () nil) => function () {return null;}
>
> (lambda () (values)) => function () { }
>
> (lambda () (values 1 2 3)) => function () { ok, nevermind??? }
>
> Not sure either way.
>
> I don't think my changes have broken anything in the meantime :)
> However, while all the tests passed, there's a warning too:
>
> Running other tests:
> ...........................................................................................................................................;
> in: LAMBDA NIL
> ;     (PARENSCRIPT::PS-COMPILE PARENSCRIPT-TEST::X)
> ;
> ; caught WARNING:
> ;   undefined variable: X
> ;
> ; compilation unit finished
> ;   Undefined variable:
> ;     X
> ;   caught 1 WARNING condition
> .................................................................................
>
> I could not hunt down (quickly) the cause of this warning, so I
> haven't done anything.
>
> Thanks for the good work!
>
> Yong
>
>> Vladimir
>>
>> 2010/1/27 szergling <senatorzergling at gmail.com>:
>>> On 1/27/10, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've also found that annoying about macros. I'm going to see what can be
>>>> done.
>>>>
>>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> Thank you. Look forward to it.
>>>
>>> By the way, I think implicit return is a very useful feature.
>>>
>>> Yong.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2010/1/26 szergling <senatorzergling at gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if there's an idiom for skipping the generation of a
>>>>> form completely at the top-level. This is mildly related to the
>>>>> implicit return feature currently being trialled. Here's an example:
>>>>> suppose I'm trying to skip over this form:
>>>>>
>>>>> (in-package :something-something)
>>>>>
>>>>> by using
>>>>>
>>>>> (defpsmacro in-package (x) nil)
>>>>>
>>>>> An in-package form then compiles to "null;"
>>>>>
>>>>> This spurious output may result in errors (I'm using ps to convert
>>>>> my Lisp code to Actionscript).
>>>>>
>>>>> How about using (values) to indicate explicitly that something
>>>>> doesn't have any return values?
>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
>