Is there a more fluid way to tame scoping of givens? #12529
liufengyun
started this conversation in
General Discussion
Replies: 1 comment
-
As a workaround, I ended up with something like the following: def use[T, R](v: T)(op: T ?=> R): R = op(using v)
def eval(e: Expr): Contextual[Value] =
...
use(trace :+ e) {
use(env2) {
eval(fun.body)
}
} With indented-syntax, it looks better: def use[T, R](v: T)(op: T ?=> R): R = op(using v)
def eval(e: Expr): Contextual[Value] =
...
use(trace :+ e):
use(env2):
eval(fun.body)
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am writing an interpreter-like program:
In the code above, the following two lines are problematic:
Two problems:
given Trace = trace :+ e
will run into cycleseval(arg)
in the same scope, a forward reference again.As a result, I am forced to break the definition of
given Trace = trace :+ e
into two lines and using a block:But what I really want is something like the following:
The hypothetical construct
given T = rhs in e
is supposed to fix two scoping problem:given/in
in the same blockrhs
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions