def test_syntax_rules_expand():
ctx = ExecutionContext()
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, """(syntax-rules ()
((_ var)
(let ((temp 1)) (+ var temp))))""")
w_expr = parse_("(_ 12)")
w_expanded = w_transformer.expand(ctx, w_expr)
assert w_expanded.to_string() == "(let ((temp 1)) (+ 12 temp))"
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(ctx, w_expr).to_number() == 13
#transparency
eval_(ctx, "(define temp 12)")
w_expr = parse_("(_ temp)")
w_expanded = w_transformer.expand(ctx, w_expr)
assert w_expanded.to_string() == "(let ((temp 1)) (+ temp temp))"
# the two occurrences of 'temp in (+ temp temp) are not the same symbol!
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(ctx, w_expr).to_number() == 13
#define in closure, should not affect macro eval
closure = ctx.copy()
eval_(closure, "(define + -)")
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(closure, w_expr).to_number() == 13
#define in top level - should affect macro eval
eval_(ctx, "(define + -)")
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(ctx, w_expr).to_number() == 11
def test_syntax_rules_expand():
ctx = ExecutionContext()
w_transformer = eval_(
ctx, """(syntax-rules ()
((_ var)
(let ((temp 1)) (+ var temp))))""")
w_expr = parse_("(_ 12)")
w_expanded = w_transformer.expand(ctx, w_expr)
assert w_expanded.to_string() == "(let ((temp 1)) (+ 12 temp))"
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(ctx, w_expr).to_number() == 13
#transparency
eval_(ctx, "(define temp 12)")
w_expr = parse_("(_ temp)")
w_expanded = w_transformer.expand(ctx, w_expr)
assert w_expanded.to_string() == "(let ((temp 1)) (+ temp temp))"
# the two occurrences of 'temp in (+ temp temp) are not the same symbol!
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(ctx, w_expr).to_number() == 13
#define in closure, should not affect macro eval
closure = ctx.copy()
eval_(closure, "(define + -)")
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(closure, w_expr).to_number() == 13
#define in top level - should affect macro eval
eval_(ctx, "(define + -)")
assert w_transformer.expand_eval(ctx, w_expr).to_number() == 11
def test_ctx_sets():
w_fnum = W_Integer(42)
w_fnum2 = W_Integer(43)
w_fnum3 = W_Integer(44)
ctx = ExecutionContext()
ctx.put("v1", w_fnum)
ctx2 = ctx.copy()
assert w_fnum is ctx2.get("v1")
ctx.set("v1", w_fnum2)
assert w_fnum2 is ctx2.get("v1")
assert w_fnum2 is ctx.get("v1")
ctx2.put("v1", w_fnum3)
assert w_fnum3 is ctx2.get("v1")
def test_ctx_sets():
w_fnum = W_Integer(42)
w_fnum2 = W_Integer(43)
w_fnum3 = W_Integer(44)
ctx = ExecutionContext()
ctx.put("v1", w_fnum)
ctx2 = ctx.copy()
assert w_fnum is ctx2.get("v1")
ctx.set("v1", w_fnum2)
assert w_fnum2 is ctx2.get("v1")
assert w_fnum2 is ctx.get("v1")
ctx2.put("v1", w_fnum3)
assert w_fnum3 is ctx2.get("v1")
def test_syntax_rules_literals():
ctx = ExecutionContext()
# => is literal, should be matched exactly
# w_transformer created in ctx
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
w_expr = parse_("(foo 12 boo)")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, ctx, w_expr)
w_expr = parse_("(foo bar boo)")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, ctx, w_expr)
# exact match
w_expr = parse_("(foo => boo)")
# within the same context
assert w_transformer.match(ctx, w_expr)[0].to_boolean()
w_42 = W_Number(42)
# different lexical scope, not the same bindings for => in ctx and closure
closure = ctx.copy()
closure.put("=>", w_42)
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, closure, w_expr)
# different lexical scope, not the same bindings for => in ctx and closure
ctx.put("=>", W_Number(12))
assert ctx.get("=>") is not closure.get("=>")
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, closure, w_expr)
# the same object for => in ctx and closure, but different bindings
# <arigo> I think this should also raise MatchError. When R5RS says
# "same binding" it probably means bound to the same *location*, not
# just that there is the same object in both locations
ctx.put("=>", w_42)
assert ctx.get("=>") is closure.get("=>")
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, closure, w_expr)
def test_syntax_rules_literals():
ctx = ExecutionContext()
# => is literal, should be matched exactly
# w_transformer created in ctx
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
w_expr = parse_("(foo 12 boo)")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, ctx, w_expr)
w_expr = parse_("(foo bar boo)")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, ctx, w_expr)
# exact match
w_expr = parse_("(foo => boo)")
# within the same context
assert w_transformer.match(ctx, w_expr)[0].to_boolean()
w_42 = W_Number(42)
# different lexical scope, not the same bindings for => in ctx and closure
closure = ctx.copy()
closure.put("=>", w_42)
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, closure, w_expr)
# different lexical scope, not the same bindings for => in ctx and closure
ctx.put("=>", W_Number(12))
assert ctx.get("=>") is not closure.get("=>")
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, closure, w_expr)
# the same object for => in ctx and closure, but different bindings
# <arigo> I think this should also raise MatchError. When R5RS says
# "same binding" it probably means bound to the same *location*, not
# just that there is the same object in both locations
ctx.put("=>", w_42)
assert ctx.get("=>") is closure.get("=>")
w_transformer = eval_(ctx, "(syntax-rules (=>) ((foo => bar) #t))")
py.test.raises(MatchError, w_transformer.match, closure, w_expr)
