December 2011 - parenscript-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[parenscript-devel] Bug: JS contains inappropriate "funcall" in SBCL
by Daniel Gackle 26 Dec '11

26 Dec '11

In SBCL, PS generates "funcall(bar)" below instead of "bar()". In CCL, it's fine. Daniel (ps (defun foo () (flet ((blah () (return-from foo (bar))))))) => function foo() { try { var blah = function () { throw { 'ps-block-tag' : 'foo', 'ps-return-value' : funcall(bar) }; }; return null; } catch (err) { if (err && 'foo' === err['ps-block-tag']) { return err['ps-return-value']; } else { throw err; }; }; };

3 2

[parenscript-devel] Upcoming Parenscript release
by Vladimir Sedach 21 Dec '11

21 Dec '11

Hello, I'm planning on a new Parenscript release shortly after the new year. There are a lot of bugfixes and other functionality changes that have gone in since the last release. Feel free to try out the new PS from the repository (git clone http://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/git/parenscript) and report any problems or bugs you find. Happy hacking, Vladimir

1 0

[parenscript-devel] bug: RETURN-FROM doesn't work with LABELS
by Daniel Gackle 17 Dec '11

17 Dec '11

This produces incorrect code (a throw with no corresponding catch): (defun foo () (labels ((bar (x) (when (evenp x) (return-from bar "even")) (blah x))) (bar 9))) If you change LABELS to FLET then it works. Daniel

2 1

[parenscript-devel] [PATCH] Implementation of TRY-EXPRESSIONIZE-IF? that doesn't call the printer.
by sblist＠me.com 17 Dec '11

17 Dec '11

I needed to avoid secondary calls to the printer for the purpose of generating source mappings, but this seems like a more precise definition anyway (unless I've missed something). Scott --- src/special-operators.lisp | 14 ++++++++++---- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/special-operators.lisp b/src/special-operators.lisp index 3a77ae5..be95a5f 100644 --- a/src/special-operators.lisp +++ b/src/special-operators.lisp @@ -130,10 +130,16 @@ `(ps-js:label ,name ,(wrap-block-for-dynamic-return name (compile-statement `(progn ,@body)))))) (defun try-expressionize-if? (form) - (< (count #\Newline (with-output-to-string (*psw-stream*) - (let ((*ps-print-pretty* t)) - (parenscript-print (compile-statement form) t)))) - (if (= (length form) 4) 5 4))) + (destructuring-bind (if condition + (block . consequent) + &optional + else + alternative-block) + (compile-statement form) + (declare (ignore if condition else block)) + (and (= (length consequent) 1) + (or (null alternative-block) + (= (length alternative-block) 2))))) (define-statement-operator return-from (tag &optional result) (if (not tag) -- 1.7.6

2 2

[parenscript-devel] "let over lambda" seems buggy
by Canhua 17 Dec '11

17 Dec '11

hi, all, I found that (create "fn" (let ((x)) (lambda () x))) compiles to { 'fn' : (x = null, function () { return x; }) } wherein the variable x may conflict with a variable with the same name outside this code. How may avoid this? How may I achieve "let over lambda" closure effect as in common lisp? Thanks.

3 7

[parenscript-devel] Today's bug fixes
by Daniel Gackle 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Thanks for the batch of bug fixes. We've upgraded to the latest commit. The only difference I saw in our compiled JS was more parentheses around operators. By inspection, they looked correct. I'm not sure the compiler needs to do this, but it's a minor point: (new Date()).getTime(); Also, I was getting a compiler warning for an unused variable in printer.lisp, so I committed an ignore for it. Daniel

1 0

[parenscript-devel] Bug: cases where PS generates syntax errors instead of expressions
by Daniel Gackle 12 Dec '11

12 Dec '11

(ps (create a 11 b 22)) => "{ a : 11, b : 22 };", which is illegal at the top level because JS interprets the curly braces as statement block delimiters. PS should probably generate "({ a : 11, b : 22 })" instead. Similarly, (ps (lambda () 123)) => "function () { return 123; };" is also illegal at the top level and should also be wrapped in parens. Such forms obviously don't come up much in source files, but they do in a REPL. We're making a PS REPL (and source-level debugger) for Emacs, which is how we ran across them.

2 1

[parenscript-devel] Bug: RETURN-FROM inside a lambda doesn't return anything
by Daniel Gackle 12 Dec '11

12 Dec '11

I thought this was working at some point, but it doesn't seem to now. FOO() returns undefined in JS, when it should return 123: (defun bar (fn) (funcall fn)) (defun foo () (bar (lambda () (return-from foo 123)))) It seems the value stored under the name "ps-return-value" isn't actually returned: function foo() { try { return bar(function () { throw { 'ps-block-tag' : 'foo', 'ps-return-value' : 123 }; }); } catch (err) { if (err && 'foo' === err['ps-block-tag']) { err['ps-return-value']; } else { throw err; }; }; };

2 3

[parenscript-devel] BLOCK/RETURN-FROM
by sblist＠me.com 12 Dec '11

12 Dec '11

Hi, I was wondering if the BLOCK/RETURN-FROM feature in PS intends to support the following case: (ps (defun foo () (flet ((bar () (return-from foo 42))) (bar)))) => WARNING: Returning from unknown block FOO "function foo() { var bar = function () { return 42; }; return bar(); };" In order to try and get around the warning, I tried this: (ps (defun baz () (block foo (flet ((bar () (return-from foo 42))) (bar))))) => WARNING: Returning from unknown block FOO "function baz() { var bar = function () { return 42; }; return bar(); };" but that didn't seem to work. Any ideas on how to achieve lexical return here? - Scott

4 4

Re: [parenscript-devel] what's wrong?
by F D 12 Dec '11

12 Dec '11

Yes it helps. Many Thanks, I made a mistake and forgot to use a (lambda...) Is there something that can help to convert js code to parenscript code? FD

3 3

[parenscript-devel] Syntax error generated by CASE
by Scott Bell 10 Dec '11

10 Dec '11

When a CASE expression is in the return position of a function and it contains an empty clause that is not the last clause, a syntax error is produced: (lambda () (case x (:foo) (:bar))) => function () { switch (x) { case 'foo': return break; case 'bar': return null; }; }; => SyntaxError: Unexpected token break Scott

2 1

[parenscript-devel] probably bug for operators * and %
by Canhua 10 Dec '11

10 Dec '11

hi, I find that (* x (% y z)) produces x * y % z while what I mean is x * ( y % z), which are very different.

2 1