This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.
Source for ticket #39
cc
changetime
2012-10-05 00:34:07
component
WG1 - Macros
description
Should we have syntax-error parallel to SRFI-23 error? This is evoked when macros are expanded.
There is a definition in JRM's Syntax-Rules Primer using syntax-rules, but it relies on the syntax-rules implementation reporting an unmatchable pattern with a complaint that includes the pattern.
id
39
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
cowan
resolution
fixed
severity
status
closed
summary
syntax-error
time
2010-03-01 09:39:21
type
defect
Changes
Change at time 2012-10-05 00:34:07
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
9
raw-time
1349372047736213
ticket
39
time
2012-10-05 00:34:07
Change at time 2012-10-05 00:34:07
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
fixed
oldvalue
raw-time
1349372047736213
ticket
39
time
2012-10-05 00:34:07
Change at time 2012-10-05 00:34:07
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
writing
raw-time
1349372047736213
ticket
39
time
2012-10-05 00:34:07
Change at time 2011-02-26 17:48:05
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
8
raw-time
1298713685000000
ticket
39
time
2011-02-26 17:48:05
Change at time 2011-02-26 17:48:05
author
alexshinn
field
owner
newvalue
alexshinn
oldvalue
raw-time
1298713685000000
ticket
39
time
2011-02-26 17:48:05
Change at time 2011-02-26 17:48:05
author
alexshinn
field
status
newvalue
writing
oldvalue
decided
raw-time
1298713685000000
ticket
39
time
2011-02-26 17:48:05
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:34:00
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
7
raw-time
1296272040000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:34:00
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:34:00
author
alexshinn
field
status
newvalue
decided
oldvalue
assigned
raw-time
1296272040000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:34:00
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:33:50
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
6
raw-time
1296272030000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:33:50
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:33:50
author
alexshinn
field
owner
newvalue
oldvalue
alexshinn
raw-time
1296272030000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:33:50
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:33:50
author
alexshinn
field
status
newvalue
assigned
oldvalue
reopened
raw-time
1296272030000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:33:50
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:33:38
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
5
raw-time
1296272018000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:33:38
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:33:38
author
alexshinn
field
resolution
newvalue
oldvalue
fixed
raw-time
1296272018000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:33:38
Change at time 2011-01-29 11:33:38
author
alexshinn
field
status
newvalue
reopened
oldvalue
closed
raw-time
1296272018000000
ticket
39
time
2011-01-29 11:33:38
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:54:56
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
The WG voted to accept `syntax-error` as part of the core.
oldvalue
4
raw-time
1287345296000000
ticket
39
time
2010-10-18 02:54:56
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:54:56
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
fixed
oldvalue
raw-time
1287345296000000
ticket
39
time
2010-10-18 02:54:56
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:54:56
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1287345296000000
ticket
39
time
2010-10-18 02:54:56
Change at time 2010-05-29 16:02:28
author
kumoyuki
field
comment
newvalue
All of the syntax-rules implementations that i have used report syntax errors, if not exactly as described in the ticket, so i don't see why we are multiplying entities here
oldvalue
3
raw-time
1275123748000000
ticket
39
time
2010-05-29 16:02:28
Change at time 2010-05-29 09:47:21
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
SYNTAX-ERROR is intended to be invoked only from syntax-rules macros. Procedural macros should invoke ERROR (or some lower-level equivalent), and the system would intercept this and report a syntax error, since it is known when we are running macro code and when we are not.
oldvalue
2
raw-time
1275101241000000
ticket
39
time
2010-05-29 09:47:21
Change at time 2010-05-28 08:51:25
author
arcfide
field
comment
newvalue
There's an issue here that no one has brought up. In order for the SYNTAX-ERROR binding to be invoked and evaluated at macro time, it would have to be a macro. This causes a problem if we also want to support later macro systems that allow for arbitrary code evaluation. If a syntax error is desired when the code is being evaluated at macro time, then it can't be a syntax, as it will evaluate and signal the error even when it should not. This necessitates two forms, one syntactic and one procedural. Is this a good thing?
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1275011485000000
ticket
39
time
2010-05-28 08:51:25
Change at time 2010-05-28 08:51:25
author
arcfide
field
milestone
newvalue
oldvalue
raw-time
1275011485000000
ticket
39
time
2010-05-28 08:51:25