Comments on: A Scheme Syntax-Rules Primer

By: sandrar

sandrar — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:05:26 +0000

Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. Cheers! Sandra. R.

By: jj

jj — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:56:06 +0000

Nice, dude, but “print” isn’t in the R5RS. You should change that to

(define x 0)
(while (< x 5)
(set! x (+ x 1))
(newline)
(write x))

By: J.P.

J.P. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:52:47 +0000

Hi Will,
Thank for your page, even with some minor flow, it was useful for me to understand macro expansion which was its target.
Something also very hard to understand is the call/cc, if you feel like to write a page on that field, that will be great.
best regards.

By: Biagiance

Biagiance — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:27:00 +0000

visit us!
newsbox.cc
newsbox.us
nbstatus.wordpress.com
NOW!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:45:53 +0000

I just wanted to point out one thing, the macros with print function is not in R5RS and causes a error, but display is.

Nice primer though thanks for the info

By: Learning Scheme macros | Chui’s counterpoint

Learning Scheme macros | Chui’s counterpoint — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:57:49 +0000

[...] to Will Donnely’s Primer on Syntax-Rules, I finally got a headstart with Scheme [...]

By: Chui Tey

Chui Tey — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:04:32 +0000

Thanks. That’s the clearest treatment of syntax-rules that I’ve come across.

By: Will Donnelly

Will Donnelly — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:38:31 +0000

foof / Alex:

(It’s rather confusing when you have a different name at the top and bottom of the comment. Which one is correct?)

Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I am not a very practiced Scheme programmer yet, and I hadn’t noticed the FOR-EACH function’s existence. I will be fixing those bits of the post shortly.

I am glad that at least I seem to have gotten the macro parts correct.

By: Will Donnelly

Will Donnelly — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:33:18 +0000

Dan:

I honestly didn’t think of trying to simplify my code any when I first wrote it, but it appears that changing the macro definition to

(define-syntax for
(syntax-rules (in as)
((for element in list body …)
(map (lambda (element)
body …)
list))
((for list as element body …)
(for element in list body …))))

Works properly. Thanks for pointing that out.

By: Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:23:46 +0000

nice one, thanks for taking the time to shed some light on it all for newbies like me.