1.2.3 Variants with Uniform Meanings

► |  | Syntax: Meta-Programming Helpers

1 | Parsing and Specifying Syntax
2 | Syntax Object Helpers
3 | Datum Pattern Matching
4 | Module-Processing Helpers
5 | Macro Transformer Helpers
6 | Reader Helpers
7 | Parsing for Bodies
8 | Unsafe for Clause Transforms
9 | Source Locations
10 | Preserving Source Locations
11 | Non-Module Compilation And Expansion
12 | Trusting Standard Recertifying Transformers
13 | Attaching Documentation to Exports
14 | Contracts for Macro Subexpressions
15 | Macro Testing
16 | Internal-Definition Context Helpers
| Index

► | 1 | Parsing and Specifying Syntax

1.1 | Introduction
1.2 | Examples
1.3 | Parsing Syntax
1.4 | Specifying Syntax with Syntax Classes
1.5 | Syntax Patterns
1.6 | Defining Simple Macros
1.7 | Literal Sets and Conventions
1.8 | Library Syntax Classes and Literal Sets
1.9 | Unwindable State
1.10 | Configuring Error Reporting
1.11 | Debugging and Inspection Tools
1.12 | Experimental
1.13 | Minimal Library

▼ | 1.2 | Examples

1.2.1 | Phases and Reusable Syntax Classes
1.2.2 | Optional Keyword Arguments
1.2.3 | Variants with Uniform Meanings
1.2.4 | Variants with Varied Meanings
1.2.5 | More Keyword Arguments
1.2.6 | Contracts on Macro Sub-expressions

top contents ← prev up next →

##### 1.2.3`` Variants with Uniform Meanings🔗ℹ

Syntax classes not only validate syntax, they also extract some measure of meaning from it. From the perspective of meaning, there are essentially two kinds of syntax class. In the first, all of the syntax class’s variants have the same kind of meaning. In the second, variants may have different kinds of meaning.In other words, some syntax classes’ meanings are products and others’ meanings are sums. This section discusses the first kind, syntax classes with uniform meanings. The next section discusses Variants with Varied Meanings.

If all of a syntax class’s variants express the same kind of information, that information can be cleanly represented via attributes, and it can be concisely processed using ellipses.

One example of a syntax class with uniform meaning: the init-decl syntax of the class macro. Here is the specification of init-decl:

init-decl |  | = |  | id
|  | | |  | (maybe-renamed)
|  | | |  | (maybe-renamed default-expr)
maybe-renamed |  | = |  | id
|  | | |  | (internal-id external-id)

The init-decl syntax class has three variants, plus an auxiliary syntax class that has two variants of its own. But all forms of init-decl ultimately carry just three pieces of information: an internal name, an external name, and a default configuration of some sort. The simpler syntactic variants are just abbreviations for the full information.

The three pieces of information determine the syntax class’s attributes. It is useful to declare the attributes explicitly using the #:attributes keyword; the declaration acts both as in-code documentation and as a check on the variants.

> (define-syntax-class init-decl
> #:attributes (internal external default)
> __)

Next we fill in the syntactic variants, deferring the computation of the attributes:

> (define-syntax-class init-decl
> #:attributes (internal external default)
> (pattern ???:id
> __)
> (pattern (???:maybe-renamed)
> __)
> (pattern (???:maybe-renamed ???:expr)
> __))

We perform a similar analysis of maybe-renamed:

> (define-syntax-class maybe-renamed
> #:attributes (internal external)
> (pattern ???:id
> __)
> (pattern (???:id ???:id)
> __))

Here’s one straightforward way of matching syntactic structure with attributes for maybe-renamed:

> (define-syntax-class maybe-renamed
> #:attributes (internal external)
> (pattern internal:id
> #:with external #'internal)
> (pattern (internal:id external:id)))

Given that definition of maybe-renamed, we can fill in most of the definition of init-decl:

> (define-syntax-class init-decl
> #:attributes (internal external default)
> (pattern internal:id
> #:with external #'internal
> #:with default ???)
> (pattern (mr:maybe-renamed)
> #:with internal #'mr.internal
> #:with external #'mr.external
> #:with default ???)
> (pattern (mr:maybe-renamed default0:expr)
> #:with internal #'mr.internal
> #:with external #'mr.external
> #:with default ???))

At this point we realize we have not decided on a representation for the default configuration. In fact, it is an example of syntax with varied meanings (aka sum or disjoint union). The following section discusses representation options in greater detail; for the sake of completeness, we present one of them here.

There are two kinds of default configuration. One indicates that the initialization argument is optional, with a default value computed from the given expression. The other indicates that the initialization argument is mandatory. We represent the variants as a (syntax) list containing the default expression and as the empty (syntax) list, respectively. More precisely:

> (define-syntax-class init-decl
> #:attributes (internal external default)
> (pattern internal:id
> #:with external #'internal
> #:with default #'())
> (pattern (mr:maybe-renamed)
> #:with internal #'mr.internal
> #:with external #'mr.external
> #:with default #'())
> (pattern (mr:maybe-renamed default0:expr)
> #:with internal #'mr.internal
> #:with external #'mr.external
> #:with default #'(default0)))

Another way to look at this aspect of syntax class design is as the algebraic factoring of sums-of-products (concrete syntax variants) into products-of-sums (attributes and abstract syntax variants). The advantages of the latter form are the “dot” notation for data extraction, avoiding or reducing additional case analysis, and the ability to concisely manipulate sequences using ellipses.

top contents ← prev up next →