GNU bug report logs - #9567
curious match bug (?)

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 9567 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andy Wingo <wingo <at> pobox.com>
To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9567 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: `match' bug ?
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:01:37 +0200

Hi Alex,

We are getting the following bug in Guile:

    > (use-modules (ice-9 match))

This imports your `match' library.

    > (define a '(1))
    > (match a (((and a 1)) a) (_ #f))
    1

Here we destructured the first element from '(1).

    > (define a '(1 2))
    > (match a ((and (a 2) (1 b)) (+ a b)) (_ #f))
    #f

Now we are trying to destructure the first two elements from '(1 2).
But it doesn't work!  OTOH it does work if we rename the pattern vars:

    > (match a ((and (x 2) (1 y)) (+ x y)) (_ #f))
    3

Can you reproduce this bug on other Schemes?  Could it be that the code
to extract vars to be bound is erroneously propagating the var bound to
the input value?  Or is it a bug in Guile?

Stefan Israelsson Tampe reports that the following redefinition of
`match' fixes the problem for him:

  (define-syntax match
    (syntax-rules ()
      ((match)
       (match-syntax-error "missing match expression"))
      ((match atom)
       (match-syntax-error "no match clauses"))
      ((match (app ...) (pat . body) ...)
       (let ((v (app ...)))
         (match-next v ((app ...) (set! (app ...))) (pat . body) ...)))
      ((match #(vec ...) (pat . body) ...)
       (let ((v #(vec ...)))
         (match-next v (v (set! v)) (pat . body) ...)))
      ((match atom (pat . body) ...)
       (let ((v atom))
         (match-next v (atom (set! atom)) (pat . body) ...)))))

As you see the last case introduces a `let'.

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.