[racket-dev] When is it safe to not rename a runtime value in a macro?

This is definitely a macro writer bill of rights situation. Too bad
that TR's optimizer cannot take advantage of all these kinds of things
that are already happening in the optimizer one level down.

Robby

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Neil Toronto <neil.toronto at gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of macros start by renaming some syntax that's assumed to eventually
> represent a runtime value, like the `or' macro does:
>
>> (syntax->datum (expand-syntax #'(or #t #f)))
> '(let-values (((or-part) '#t)) (if or-part or-part '#f))
>
> But it's not always a good thing, particularly when the output will be
> processed by another macro, and parts will be tested using an `identifier=?'
> function. For example, my `inline-sort' takes `<' as an argument. So
>
>   (inline-sort < a b)
>
> expands to
>
>   (let ([lt? <] [temp1 a] [temp2 b])
>     (if (lt? temp1 temp2) (values temp1 temp2) (values temp2 temp1)))
>
> Well, it did at first. When I discovered that Typed Racket's optimizer would
> never detect that `lt?' is actually `<' and replace it with `unsafe-fl<', I
> altered the macro to detect when the `<' is an identifier, and not rename it
> with a `let'.
>
> I know that I should assert my rights under the Macro Bill. But I like to
> program defensively. So what's safe to not rename? I think the following
> are:
>
> symbol
> number
> string
> bytes
> null
> character
> regexp
> prefab struct key
>
> Also, should I ever have to intern syntax that's one of these kinds of
> things?
>
> Neil ⊥
>
> _________________________
>  Racket Developers list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev