This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Recursive expansion of pmacros (was: Re: Typo: .substr in pmacros.texi is .substring in pmacros.scm)
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: dje at transmeta dot com
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:19:14 +0100
- Subject: Recursive expansion of pmacros (was: Re: Typo: .substr in pmacros.texi is .substring in pmacros.scm)
> From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:14:02 -0800 (PST)
> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:05:29 -0500
> > > From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:57:08PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > > It would IMHO be very useful if .sym-built symbols were
> > > > .pmacro-expanded, as I initially thought. [...]
> > >
> > > I see this sort of recursive macro-expansion could be useful.
> > > Does someone have an argument against it?
> >
> > I didn't see any argument against it, except for the comment in
> > the code. This works for my simple command-line examples
> > including the one in the comment but beware of the scheme/CGEN
> > newbie. (Is this an ok way to compose ChangeLog entries for
> > nested defines?)
> >
> > ! ; ??? We use to re-examine `result' to see if it was another pmacro
> > ! ; invocation. This allowed doing things like ((.sym a b c) arg1 arg2)
> > ! ; where `abc' is a pmacro. Scheme doesn't work this way, so it was
> > ! ; removed. It can be put back should it ever be warranted.
>
> I'm apprehensive, but if people want to try this go ahead.
Hey, time has run out for protests! :-)
> If people start getting into trouble because of this I hope they share their
> experience.
And their joy! But that would probably be a first. ;-)
> From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:14:59 -0800 (PST)
> btw, do you have an actual use for it?
> Or is this just something that you think might be
> useful in the future?
As I wrote, I had already startet to depend upon it in a port in
progress. I greatly simplified things (or made it hard in the
absence, I should say).
brgds, H-P