Hi Atharva
On 28/03/2021 13:40, Atharva Raykar wrote:
On 28-Mar-2021, at 08:46, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The "define-?.*" can be simplified to just "define.*", but looking at
the tests is that the intent? From the tests it looks like "define[- ]"
is what the author wants, unless this is meant to also match
"(definements".
Yes, you captured my intent correctly. Will fix it.
Has this been tested on some real-world scheme code? E.g. I have guile
installed locally, and it has really large top-level eval-when
blocks. These rules would jump over those to whatever the function above
them is.
I do not have a large scheme codebase on my own, I usually use Racket,
which is a much larger language with many more forms. Other Schemes like
Guile also extend the language a lot, like in your example, eval-when is
an extension provided by Guile (and Chicken and Chez), but not a part of
the R6RS document when I searched its index.
So the 'define' forms are the only one that I know would reliably be present
across all schemes. But one can also make a case where some of these non-standard
forms may be common enough that they are worth adding in. In that case which
forms to include? Should we consider everything in the SRFI's[1]? Should the
various module definitions of Racket be included? It's a little tricky to know
where to stop.
If there are some common forms such as eval-when then it would be good
to include them, otherwise we end up needing a different rule for each
scheme implementation as they all seem to tweak something. Gerbil uses
'def...' e.g def, defsyntax, defstruct, defrules rather than define,
define-syntax, define-record etc. I'm not user if we want to accommodate
that or not.
Best Wishes
Phillip
That being said, I will try to run this through more Scheme codebases that I can
find and see if there are any forms that seem to show up commonly enough that they
are worth including.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_Requests_for_Implementation
