Re: [PATCH] Print backtraces for syntax errors too.

[Maxime Devos]

On 23-02-2023 12:38, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
>
> > For complicated macros, especially macros that are used correctly but
> > have a bug in their implementation somewhere and use 'syntax-case'
> > or 'syntax-rules' multiple times, it can be very convenient to know
> > _which_ syntax-case or syntax-rules raised the syntax-error.
> >
> > E.g., I'm currently debugging some changes to a (non-Guile) macro,
> > and I don't know what to make of the following -- the '#:getter . datum-type'
> > isn't even present in the original code anywhere:
> >
> > ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> > Syntax error:
> > unknown location: source expression failed to match any pattern in form 
> > (#:getter . datum-type)
> > make: *** [Makefile:1333: gnu/gnunet/dht/client.go] Fout 1
> >
> > As such, partially revert the following commit that does not give a
> > rationale on how backtraces for syntax errors aren't helpful.
>
> Do you have a simple reproducer and a before/after comparison showing
> what Guile prints?

Looks like the patch didn't actually work:

(define-syntax syntax-stuff-twice
  (lambda (s)
    (define (process/internal object)
      ;; Oops! Only certain forms of 'object' were accepted.
      (throw 'syntax-error "syntax-stuff-twice" "bad" '() object object))
    (define (process/x x)
      #`(list #,(process/internal x)))
    (define (process/y y)
      #`(vector #,(process/internal y)))
    (define (computify o)
      (datum->syntax #false o))
    (syntax-case s ()
      ((_)
       ;; Let's compute some syntax, for some reason.
       (let ((x (computify "imagine this syntax is very hard to follow"))
             (y (computify "and difficult to distinguish from this")))
         #`(list #,(process/x x) #,(process/y y)))))))

(syntax-stuff-twice)

;; Before:
;;  unknown file:#f:#f: syntax-stuff-twice: bad in subform 
#<syntax:reproducer.scm:15:27 "imagine this syntax is very hard to 
follow"> of #<syntax:reproducer.scm:15:27 "imagine this syntax is very 
hard to follow">
;; After:
;;  [the same thing]
;;
;; Looks like another patch is needed ...

OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature