<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Eli Barzilay <<a href="mailto:eli@barzilay.org">eli@barzilay.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">On Nov 20, Marco Monteiro wrote: > > Now I'm trying a new approach. Instead of expanding the module in > the reader, I export a #%module-begin that replaces its subforms by > a new macro that code-walks by using local-expand and some other > hacks. This does not mix read and macro expansion levels, but I have > to 10 times more code. </div>I didn't understand what you're trying to do in general? Why do you need any kind of a code walker to begin with? <div><div></div> </div></blockquote></div> To expand the code. For example, I want to write --- #lang masm/sines (define (f) (lambda () 42)) (f) --- and I want it evaluated as if I wrote this: --- #lang my-module (define-values (f) (#%app void)) (#%app void) (store-code (list '(define-values (f) (lambda () (#%datum 42)) '(#%app f)) --- This is a simplification, because I also want to store some syntax information, line number, etc. The definitions must stay in place because the module may have a provide form that provides f. The expressions must not be executed, because some of the variables (f in this case) will not have the expected value (a procedure in this case). Actually, the idea was to have the evaluation of a module to build its Scheme AST, that can later be transformed to a JavaScript AST. There may be a much saner way to do this. And this may end up not working. I'm just experimenting. Marco