[plt-scheme] attempt to discern applications from syntactic formsfails

Thanks, that works, I think. With your clear explanation and some more 
browsing in the docs I surely will find out why. What I am working on, is a 
macro that lazily evaluates lambda-terms, but includes a form that escapes 
from curried and lazy evaluation and that sees all bindings from which the 
currying/lazy macro is called. I also want a macro that embeds a form in a 
predefined environment. Combining these two requirements is my problem. I 
have two versions that work well, but none that satisfies both conditions. I 
am coming close now! Thanks,
Jos

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew Flatt" <mflatt at cs.utah.edu>
To: "Jos Koot" <jos.koot at telefonica.net>
Cc: <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] attempt to discern applications from syntactic 
formsfails


> At Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:40:36 +0100, "Jos Koot" wrote:
>> My question is at the <===== in the following code:
>>
>> (define-syntax (x stx)
>>  (syntax-case stx ()
>>   ((_ x)
>>    (let ((y (expand-once #'x)))
>>     (printf "~s~n" (syntax->datum y))
>>     (syntax-case y (#%app)
>>      ((#%app . z) #''app)
>>      (_ #''no-app))))))
>>
>> [...]
>> (x (list 1 2 3))
>> ; printed (#%app list 1 2 3)
>> ; value: no-app, why??? <===== I expected app
>
> The `expand-once' is working at phase 1, while `syntax-case' is
> comparing identifiers at phase 0.
>
> Furthermore, the `#%app' of `scheme/base' is being expanded to
> `#%plain-app'. Confusingly, in the scope of the `#%app' definition,
> `#%plain-app' is called `#%app', so the expansion prints as `#%app'
>
> So, you would have gotten the expected results with
>
>    (syntax-case* y (#%plain-app) free-transformer-identifier=?
>     ((#%plain-app . z) #''app)
>     (_ #''no-app))
>
>
> I doubt that this is what you really intended, though. I think it's
> more likely that you wanted to use `local-expand' (which will expand
> the given expression at phase 0) and use `#%app' as one of the stop
> forms, in which case the `syntax-case' match would work as you expect.
>
> Actually, depending on the context, it's probably better to use
> `#%plain-app' as a stop form, in which case you'll match on
> `#%plain-app'. That works with macros defined in a language other than
> `scheme/base', since `#%plain-app' is the primitive application form.
>
>
> Matthew
>