[CFP] 2004 Scheme Workshop

The 2004 Scheme Workshop will be held with ICFP this September in
Snowbird, Utah.  Plans for this one-day event include presentations
of technical and experience papers as well as panel discussions.
It should be a useful and fun day for anyone with an interest in Scheme
or functional programming languages.

Please take a moment to read the "call for papers" appended below and
consider submitting a paper.  The submission deadline is June 9, 2004.

See you in Utah,
    -Oscar Waddell
     workshop chair

=======================================================================

                          CALL FOR PAPERS

                       2004 Scheme Workshop
                http://www.cs.indiana.edu/scheme2004

                        Snowbird, Utah, USA
                         22 September 2004

        The workshop will be held in conjunction with ICFP 2004.
                  http://www.cs.indiana.edu/icfp04/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Important dates

 Submission deadline   June 9, 2004

non-hygienic define-syntax needed

Hi,

[1] since this list is quiet, I want to try out my subscription

[2] I need to create a predicate-builder, but my define-syntax is making 
each instance of "number" in the macro expansion unique:

(define-syntax build-predicate
  (syntax-rules ()
    (
     (build-predicate expression)
     (lambda (number)
       expression)
     )))

(define eq-4 (build-predicate (eq? number 4)))

when I try to use eq-4, I am told that number is undefined. Complete 
code attached

Error: undefined variable
       number
       (package user)

;; to-do:
;; build fold-counter from a fold-action-builder
;; create a predicate generator

(define *lis* '(1 3 5 7 8 9 2 3 0 9 1 2 8 4  3 2 4 9 8 2))

Re: non-hygienic define-syntax needed

Terrence Brannon wrote:

> [2] I need to create a predicate-builder, but my define-syntax is 
> making each instance of "number" in the macro expansion unique:

I'd suggest to reevaluate your needs and dump implicit fix-name
parameters, a truly obfuscatory feature.  I'd much prefer

   (define (eq-4 number) (eq? number 4))

over

> (define eq-4 (build-predicate (eq? number 4)))

That said, the s48 low-level macros

   (define-syntax foo (lambda (form rename name=?) ...))

have you do your hygiene yourself so that you may capture variables
or introduce bindings without thinking.  (And thinking is precisely
what I am unwilling to try right now.  Therefore no advice on syntax-
rules.)

For documentation on the low-level (explicit renaming) macro facility,
cf. the pointers in the docu section of scsh.net;  for usage examples
grep the sources of s48 or scsh.

rthappe

[CFP] 2004 Scheme Workshop

The 2004 Scheme Workshop will be held with ICFP this September in
Snowbird, Utah.  Plans for this one-day event include presentations
of technical and experience papers as well as panel discussions.
It should be a useful and fun day for anyone with an interest in Scheme
or functional programming languages.

Please take a moment to read the "call for papers" appended below and
consider submitting a paper.  The submission deadline is June 9, 2004.

See you in Utah,
    -Oscar Waddell
     workshop chair

=======================================================================

                          CALL FOR PAPERS

                       2004 Scheme Workshop
                http://www.cs.indiana.edu/scheme2004

                        Snowbird, Utah, USA
                         22 September 2004

        The workshop will be held in conjunction with ICFP 2004.
                  http://www.cs.indiana.edu/icfp04/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Important dates

 Submission deadline   June 9, 2004

non-hygienic define-syntax needed

Hi,

[1] since this list is quiet, I want to try out my subscription

[2] I need to create a predicate-builder, but my define-syntax is making 
each instance of "number" in the macro expansion unique:

(define-syntax build-predicate
  (syntax-rules ()
    (
     (build-predicate expression)
     (lambda (number)
       expression)
     )))

(define eq-4 (build-predicate (eq? number 4)))

when I try to use eq-4, I am told that number is undefined. Complete 
code attached

Error: undefined variable
       number
       (package user)

;; to-do:
;; build fold-counter from a fold-action-builder
;; create a predicate generator

(define *lis* '(1 3 5 7 8 9 2 3 0 9 1 2 8 4  3 2 4 9 8 2))

Re: non-hygienic define-syntax needed

Terrence Brannon wrote:

> [2] I need to create a predicate-builder, but my define-syntax is 
> making each instance of "number" in the macro expansion unique:

I'd suggest to reevaluate your needs and dump implicit fix-name
parameters, a truly obfuscatory feature.  I'd much prefer

   (define (eq-4 number) (eq? number 4))

over

> (define eq-4 (build-predicate (eq? number 4)))

That said, the s48 low-level macros

   (define-syntax foo (lambda (form rename name=?) ...))

have you do your hygiene yourself so that you may capture variables
or introduce bindings without thinking.  (And thinking is precisely
what I am unwilling to try right now.  Therefore no advice on syntax-
rules.)

For documentation on the low-level (explicit renaming) macro facility,
cf. the pointers in the docu section of scsh.net;  for usage examples
grep the sources of s48 or scsh.

rthappe