low level macros #34
Merged
low level macros #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The test case for the expansion shows the problem
certainty
commented
Sep 26, 2021
| new_ls.extend(self.expand_all(operands)?); | ||
|
|
||
| Ok(Datum::list(new_ls.into_iter(), loc)) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn expand_macro(&mut self, datum: &Datum, transformer: &syntax::Transformer) -> Result<Datum> { | ||
| match transformer { | ||
| syntax::Transformer::LowLevel(expander) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both er- and lowlevel macros use the same mechanism to expand the form only with different arguments. Should this be consolidated? ER-macros might change more in the future when we track diverged bindings?
certainty
commented
Sep 26, 2021
| @@ -46,7 +48,7 @@ impl Expander { | |||
| exprs, | |||
| datum.source_location().clone() | |||
| ); | |||
| let expanded_lambda = self.expand_macros(&lambda)?; | |||
| let expanded_lambda = self.expand_macros(&lambda)?.expect("expected lambda body to expand correctly"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the parse succeeds without producing an expression, this indicates a compiler bug. Surface that consistently instead of using expect
certainty
commented
Sep 26, 2021
| let mut registry = Registry::new(); | ||
| let source = registry | ||
| .add(&mut BufferSource::new(inp, "datum-parser-test")) | ||
| .unwrap(); | ||
| let reader = Reader::new(); | ||
| let datum = reader.parse(&source).unwrap(); | ||
|
|
||
| datum.to_vec()[0].clone() | ||
| datum.to_vec().clone() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need to clone. Instead add a way to turn the parse result into the vector and move it out
Remove lowlevel-macro-transformer. This is the same as an er-macro-transformer that ignores it's other two arguments
We will implement explicit renaming macros later, possibly only after we have introduced libraries.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a lowlevel; macro facility ala
defmacro. It introduces procedural macros and also lays the foundation for other procedural macros like explicit renaming, which we want to converge to evntually.The following code demonstrates that.
Limitations