-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
jclass.scm
235 lines (197 loc) · 6.46 KB
/
jclass.scm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
;;; Copyright 2016-2018 by Christian Jaeger <ch@christianjaeger.ch>
;;; This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
;;; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published
;;; by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
;;; (at your option) any later version.
(require easy-1
joo
(code-macro-expand macro-expand/symtbl)
symboltable
test)
(include "cj-standarddeclares.scm")
;; more-oo-inspired syntax on top of joo
;; (jinterface name . forms) and (jclass name . forms)
;; where forms are modded directly? No, still use define-syntax, so,
;; the toplevel jinterface / jclass definitions don't inherit, the
;; local redefinitions of those macros do.
;; Ah uh eh, can't use ##define-syntax as it escapes (begin )
;; forms. And I have to use begin forms since non-macro definitions
;; *do* have to escape it. Gah. Back to parsing myself. Forever.
;; So there are still two implementations of the jinterface and jclass
;; forms: the outmost, and the inner ones. Should they be called
;; differently even? Can't really do that right, forgetting etc. (A
;; whole language? Well yes but triggered still and so whole language
;; parser hence forever.)
;; Both implementations do the same thing though, they walk the direct
;; inner layer of forms and run the same expander (recursively) on
;; found forms.
(defvar *jclass-debug* #f)
(def (jclass:expand interface-syms
class-syms
stx
[boolean? is-class?]
args
maybe-super-name
[boolean? super-is-class?])
(let-pair
((decl forms) args)
(when *jclass-debug*
(pp-through-source "jclass:expand expanding..." decl))
(let* ((c
(lambda (_constructor-stx name _maybe-constructor-name _field-decls)
`(,(if is-class? `joo-class `joo-interface)
,decl
,@(if maybe-super-name
(list (joo-extends-or-implements
stx super-is-class? is-class?)
maybe-super-name)
'())
,@(map (C jclass:perhaps-expand-in-context
interface-syms
class-syms
#f
_
name
is-class?)
forms))))
(res
(joo:parse-decl decl
cont-renamedconstructor: c
cont-samename: c
cont-nofields: c)))
(when *jclass-debug*
(pp-through-source "jclass:expand"
(vector stx res)))
res)))
;; Prevent triggering the top-level joo-class / joo-interface macro
;; expanders in nested scopes during expansion time of jclass, since
;; we need the top-level one to be evaluated to maintain correct
;; ordering of the side-effects via eval in joo:joo-expand. Ain't that
;; ugly? But how to improve? Use a logic engine? (Monads wouldn't
;; help either, right, other than via providing logic engine?)
(def jclass:do-not-expand
(map (C cons _ #t)
'(joo-class expansion#joo-class
joo-interface expansion#joo-interface)))
(def (jclass:perhaps-expand-in-context
;; the symbols used for interface and class definition forms
;; (necessary for nested scopes, as those are parsed directly,
;; not via macro system; NOTE: need to include expansion#
;; variants, too!):
interface-syms
class-syms
;; other arguments:
[boolean? require-match?]
expr
maybe-super-name
[boolean? super-is-class?])
(if (pair? (source-code expr))
(let ((expr*
(macro-expand/symtbl
expr
(list.symboltable
(append (map (C cons _
(lambda (expr)
(jclass:expand interface-syms
class-syms
expr
#f
(cdr (source-code expr))
maybe-super-name
super-is-class?)))
interface-syms)
(map (C cons _
(lambda (expr)
(jclass:expand interface-syms
class-syms
expr
#t
(cdr (source-code expr))
maybe-super-name
super-is-class?)))
class-syms)
jclass:do-not-expand)))))
(if (or (not require-match?)
(not (eq? (source-code expr*) (source-code expr))))
(possibly-sourcify expr* expr)
(raise-source-error expr "BUG")))
(if require-match?
(raise-source-error expr "BUG1")
expr)))
(defmacro (jinterface decl . forms)
(jclass:perhaps-expand-in-context '(jinterface expansion#jinterface)
'(jclass expansion#jclass)
#t stx #f #f))
(defmacro (jclass decl . forms)
(jclass:perhaps-expand-in-context '(jinterface expansion#jinterface)
'(jclass expansion#jclass)
#t stx #f #t))
;; ^ XX btw double extends: or implements: keywords, how to handle?
;; Really \SCHEME[keyword arguments should handle duplicate argument
;; case generally]?
(TEST
> (jinterface jct
(jclass (jclass_foo x y)
(jclass (bar z)
(jclass (baz)))
;; method *after* an inner class definition to
;; test for the ##define-syntax (inner syntax
;; scoping) issue:
(def-method- (meth s)
(+ (.x s) (.y s))))
(jinterface jct2
(jclass (jclass_foo2 x))))
> (jclass_foo 10 12)
#((jclass_foo) 10 12)
> (def b (baz 10 12 13))
> b
#((baz) 10 12 13)
> (jclass_foo? b)
#t
> (jct? b)
#t
> (jct2? b)
#f
> (jct? (jclass_foo2 1))
#t
> (jct2? (jclass_foo2 1))
#t
;; > (jct? jct2) ehr there's no constructor. Do or do I not
;; have a way to check this hierarchy just on the class level yet?
> (with-exception-catcher
source-error-message
(& (eval (quote-source (jinterface jct
(jclass (foo x y)
(jinterface jctdeep
(jclass (bar z)
(jclass (baz)))))
(jinterface jct2
(jclass (foo2 x))))))))
"an interface cannot extend a class"
;; Test the inner syntax scoping thing:
> (expansion#jclass (foo x y) (jclass (bar z)))
(joo-class (foo x y)
(joo-class (bar z) extends: foo))
> (expansion#jclass (foo x y)
(jclass (bar z) (def-method- (meth s) 'bar))
(def-method- (meth s) 'foo))
(joo-class
(foo x y)
(joo-class (bar z) extends: foo (def-method- (meth s) 'bar))
(def-method- (meth s) 'foo))
;; and on the earlier, actually executed, definition of foo:
> (.meth (jclass_foo 10 11))
21)
;; Scoping: do not re-arrange stuff
(TEST
> (jclass two
(jclass (two1 x))
;; Yes, the scope of two being able to access syntactical
;; definitions in two1 is kinda weird, but well? It would
;; be odd if it would only work as |def.| after exiting the
;; two's scope.
(def (t-two1 s)
(let-two1 ((x) s)
x)))
> (t-two1 (two1 12))
12)