Add stx txexpr functions in txexpr/stx #5

Similar to functions like stx-car from syntax/stx, this PR adds:

stx-xexpr?
stx-txexpr?
stx-txexpr->values
stx-txexpr->list
stx-txexpr-tag
stx-txexpr-attrs
stx-txexpr-elements

Similar to functions like `stx-car` from `syntax/stx`, this PR adds: - `stx-xexpr?` - `stx-txexpr?` - `stx-txexpr->values` - `stx-txexpr->list` - `stx-txexpr-tag` - `stx-txexpr-attrs` - `stx-txexpr-elements`

I can take the container functions. I would be unwise to accept the others, because I don’t know anything about syntax-parse and thus cannot maintain the code. (It would also need docs & tests.)

Why not create a separate stx-txexpr package that depends on txexpr but adds your stx module to the txexpr collection.

I can take the `container` functions. I would be unwise to accept the others, because I don’t know anything about `syntax-parse` and thus cannot maintain the code. (It would also need docs & tests.) Why not create a separate `stx-txexpr` package that depends on `txexpr` but adds your `stx` module to the `txexpr` collection.

What if I took out just the two syntax-parse forms, and left the functions like stx-txexpr? and stx-txexpr->values? I could define the syntax-parse forms in terms of those functions.

What if I took out just the two `syntax-parse` forms, and left the functions like `stx-txexpr?` and `stx-txexpr->values`? I could define the syntax-parse forms in terms of those functions.

Still would need tests & docs.

Also, I remain unclear about the overall purpose of these functions. I thought stx-txexpr-tag? would be a predicate for syntax objects that contain txexpr-tag?. But that's not so — it also returns #true for ordinary txexpr-tags.

Still would need tests & docs. Also, I remain unclear about the overall purpose of these functions. I thought `stx-txexpr-tag?` would be a predicate for syntax objects that contain `txexpr-tag?`. But that's not so — it also returns `#true` for ordinary `txexpr-tag`s.

Yes, just like stx-pair? returns true on both normal conss and syntax containing them and stx-null? returns true on both normal '() and syntax containing it.

Yes, just like `stx-pair?` returns true on both normal `cons`s and syntax containing them and `stx-null?` returns true on both normal `'()` and syntax containing it.

OK, if it corresponds to an existing idiom, that’s fine.

All the functions in syntax/stx work just as well on normal non-syntax versions as they do on full syntax versions. And one of the reasons you would use stx->list instead of syntax->list is for situations like (cons 1 (cons 3 #'(3 4))), where it's both a "normal" cons and could-be-flattened-into-a-normal-list, but part of the list inside still needs to be converted.

I will delete the syntax-parse forms and add tests and docs.

All the functions in `syntax/stx` work just as well on normal non-syntax versions as they do on full syntax versions. And one of the reasons you would use `stx->list` instead of `syntax->list` is for situations like `(cons 1 (cons 3 #'(3 4)))`, where it's both a "normal" cons and could-be-flattened-into-a-normal-list, but part of the list inside still needs to be converted. I will delete the syntax-parse forms and add tests and docs.

I have added tests and docs.

Thanks for catching those typos

Thank you for the PR

Labels Milestones

Add stx txexpr functions in txexpr/stx #5

Step 1:

Step 2: