Next: Syntax Transformer Helpers, Previous: Syntax Rules, Up: Macros [Contents][Index]
syntax-case Systemsyntax-case macros are procedural syntax transformers, with a power
worthy of Scheme.
Match the syntax object syntax against the given patterns, in order. If a pattern matches, return the result of evaluating the associated exp.
Compare the following definitions of when:
(define-syntax when
(syntax-rules ()
((_ test e e* ...)
(if test (begin e e* ...)))))
(define-syntax when
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ test e e* ...)
#'(if test (begin e e* ...))))))
Clearly, the syntax-case definition is similar to its syntax-rules
counterpart, and equally clearly there are some differences. The
syntax-case definition is wrapped in a lambda, a function of one
argument; that argument is passed to the syntax-case invocation; and the
“return value” of the macro has a #' prefix.
All of these differences stem from the fact that syntax-case does not
define a syntax transformer itself – instead, syntax-case expressions
provide a way to destructure a syntax object, and to rebuild syntax
objects as output.
So the lambda wrapper is simply a leaky implementation detail, that
syntax transformers are just functions that transform syntax to syntax. This
should not be surprising, given that we have already described macros as
“programs that write programs”. syntax-case is simply a way to take
apart and put together program text, and to be a valid syntax transformer it
needs to be wrapped in a procedure.
Unlike traditional Lisp macros (see Defmacros), syntax-case macros
transform syntax objects, not raw Scheme forms. Recall the naive expansion of
my-or given in the previous section:
(let ((t #t))
(my-or #f t))
;; naive expansion:
(let ((t #t))
(let ((t #f))
(if t t t)))
Raw Scheme forms simply don’t have enough information to distinguish the first
two t instances in (if t t t) from the third t. So instead
of representing identifiers as symbols, the syntax expander represents
identifiers as annotated syntax objects, attaching such information to those
syntax objects as is needed to maintain referential transparency.
Create a syntax object wrapping form within the current lexical context.
Syntax objects are typically created internally to the process of expansion, but it is possible to create them outside of syntax expansion:
(syntax (foo bar baz)) ⇒ #<some representation of that syntax>
However it is more common, and useful, to create syntax objects when building
output from a syntax-case expression.
(define-syntax add1
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ exp)
(syntax (+ exp 1))))))
It is not strictly necessary for a syntax-case expression to return a
syntax object, because syntax-case expressions can be used in helper
functions, or otherwise used outside of syntax expansion itself. However a
syntax transformer procedure must return a syntax object, so most uses of
syntax-case do end up returning syntax objects.
Here in this case, the form that built the return value was (syntax (+ exp
1)). The interesting thing about this is that within a syntax
expression, any appearance of a pattern variable is substituted into the
resulting syntax object, carrying with it all relevant metadata from the source
expression, such as lexical identity and source location.
Indeed, a pattern variable may only be referenced from inside a syntax
form. The syntax expander would raise an error when defining add1 if it
found exp referenced outside a syntax form.
Since syntax appears frequently in macro-heavy code, it has a special
reader macro: #'. #'foo is transformed by the reader into
(syntax foo), just as 'foo is transformed into (quote foo).
The pattern language used by syntax-case is conveniently the same
language used by syntax-rules. Given this, Guile actually defines
syntax-rules in terms of syntax-case:
(define-syntax syntax-rules
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ (k ...) ((keyword . pattern) template) ...)
#'(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x (k ...)
((dummy . pattern) #'template)
...))))))
And that’s that.
syntax-case?The examples we have shown thus far could just as well have been expressed with
syntax-rules, and have just shown that syntax-case is more
verbose, which is true. But there is a difference: syntax-case creates
procedural macros, giving the full power of Scheme to the macro expander.
This has many practical applications.
A common desire is to be able to match a form only if it is an identifier. This
is impossible with syntax-rules, given the datum matching forms. But with
syntax-case it is easy:
Returns #t if syntax-object is an identifier, or #f
otherwise.
;; relying on previous add1 definition
(define-syntax add1!
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ var) (identifier? #'var)
#'(set! var (add1 var))))))
(define foo 0)
(add1! foo)
foo ⇒ 1
(add1! "not-an-identifier") ⇒ error
With syntax-rules, the error for (add1! "not-an-identifier") would
be something like “invalid set!”. With syntax-case, it will say
something like “invalid add1!”, because we attach the guard
clause to the pattern: (identifier? #'var). This becomes more important
with more complicated macros. It is necessary to use identifier?, because
to the expander, an identifier is more than a bare symbol.
Note that even in the guard clause, we reference the var pattern variable
within a syntax form, via #'var.
Another common desire is to introduce bindings into the lexical context of the
output expression. One example would be in the so-called “anaphoric macros”,
like aif. Anaphoric macros bind some expression to a well-known
identifier, often it, within their bodies. For example, in (aif
(foo) (bar it)), it would be bound to the result of (foo).
To begin with, we should mention a solution that doesn’t work:
;; doesn't work
(define-syntax aif
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ test then else)
#'(let ((it test))
(if it then else))))))
The reason that this doesn’t work is that, by default, the expander will
preserve referential transparency; the then and else expressions
won’t have access to the binding of it.
But they can, if we explicitly introduce a binding via datum->syntax.
Create a syntax object that wraps datum, within the lexical context corresponding to the identifier template-id.
For completeness, we should mention that it is possible to strip the metadata from a syntax object, returning a raw Scheme datum:
Strip the metadata from syntax-object, returning its contents as a raw Scheme datum.
In this case we want to introduce it in the context of the whole
expression, so we can create a syntax object as (datum->syntax x 'it),
where x is the whole expression, as passed to the transformer procedure.
Here’s another solution that doesn’t work:
;; doesn't work either
(define-syntax aif
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ test then else)
(let ((it (datum->syntax x 'it)))
#'(let ((it test))
(if it then else)))))))
The reason that this one doesn’t work is that there are really two
environments at work here – the environment of pattern variables, as
bound by syntax-case, and the environment of lexical variables,
as bound by normal Scheme. The outer let form establishes a binding in
the environment of lexical variables, but the inner let form is inside a
syntax form, where only pattern variables will be substituted. Here we
need to introduce a piece of the lexical environment into the pattern
variable environment, and we can do so using syntax-case itself:
;; works, but is obtuse
(define-syntax aif
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ test then else)
;; invoking syntax-case on the generated
;; syntax object to expose it to `syntax'
(syntax-case (datum->syntax x 'it) ()
(it
#'(let ((it test))
(if it then else))))))))
(aif (getuid) (display it) (display "none")) (newline)
-| 500
However there are easier ways to write this. with-syntax is often
convenient:
Bind patterns pat from their corresponding values val, within the lexical context of exp ....
;; better
(define-syntax aif
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ test then else)
(with-syntax ((it (datum->syntax x 'it)))
#'(let ((it test))
(if it then else)))))))
As you might imagine, with-syntax is defined in terms of
syntax-case. But even that might be off-putting to you if you are an old
Lisp macro hacker, used to building macro output with quasiquote. The
issue is that with-syntax creates a separation between the point of
definition of a value and its point of substitution.
So for cases in which a quasiquote style makes more sense,
syntax-case also defines quasisyntax, and the related
unsyntax and unsyntax-splicing, abbreviated by the reader as
#`, #,, and #,@, respectively.
For example, to define a macro that inserts a compile-time timestamp into a source file, one may write:
(define-syntax display-compile-timestamp
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_)
#`(begin
(display "The compile timestamp was: ")
(display #,(current-time))
(newline))))))
Readers interested in further information on syntax-case macros should
see R. Kent Dybvig’s excellent The Scheme Programming Language, either
edition 3 or 4, in the chapter on syntax. Dybvig was the primary author of the
syntax-case system. The book itself is available online at
http://scheme.com/tspl4/.
When writing procedural macros that generate macro definitions, it is
convenient to use a different ellipsis identifier at each level. Guile
supports this for procedural macros using the with-ellipsis
special form:
ellipsis must be an identifier. Evaluate body in a special
lexical environment such that all macro patterns and templates within
body will use ellipsis as the ellipsis identifier instead of
the usual three dots (...).
For example:
(define-syntax define-quotation-macros
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ (macro-name head-symbol) ...)
#'(begin (define-syntax macro-name
(lambda (x)
(with-ellipsis :::
(syntax-case x ()
((_ x :::)
#'(quote (head-symbol x :::)))))))
...)))))
(define-quotation-macros (quote-a a) (quote-b b) (quote-c c))
(quote-a 1 2 3) ⇒ (a 1 2 3)
Note that with-ellipsis does not affect the ellipsis identifier
of the generated code, unless with-ellipsis is included around
the generated code.
Next: Syntax Transformer Helpers, Previous: Syntax Rules, Up: Macros [Contents][Index]