[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mark uniqueness
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: mark uniqueness |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:26:36 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> (define-syntax-rule (define-const x val)
> (begin
> (define t val)
> (define-syntax x (identifier-syntax t))))
>
> Here, `t' will have a fresh mark.
>
> Now, if in one compilation unit, I do:
>
> (define-const x 10)
>
> And in another, I do:
>
> (let ((t 20))
> x) => ?
>
> You would expect the result to be 20. But I think it could be 20, if
> the marks on the two "t"s happened to collide.
Ah yes, indeed you are right. Thanks for this explanation. I guess we
need universally-unique gensyms for marks at least, regardless of which
`local-eval' implementation we use.
Thanks,
Mark
- Re: syntax-local-binding, (continued)
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/23
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/23
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/23
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Noah Lavine, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Peter TB Brett, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, David Kastrup, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/24
- mark uniqueness (Was: Re: syntax-local-binding), Andy Wingo, 2012/01/24
- Re: mark uniqueness,
Mark H Weaver <=
- Re: mark uniqueness, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/25
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/24
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2012/01/25
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/25
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/01/25
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/25
- Re: syntax-local-binding, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/26