I was curious, has anyone implemented "internal definitions", that is, a way to introduce a variable like `let`, but without having to indent the code that uses it?
For example, I may have a function like:
(def foo ()
(let a (...)
(let b (... a ...)
(let c (... b ...)
and the indentation keeps getting deeper the more variables I define. `withs` can help, but only if I'm not doing something in between each variable definition.
In Racket, this could be written
(define a (...))
(define b (... a ...))
(define c (... b ...))
In Racket, this is called "using define in an internal definition context"; it's like using `let` to define the variable (the scope of the variable extends to end of the enclosing form) except that you don't have to indent.
In Arc, I'd like to use `var`, like this:
(def foo ()
(var a (...))
(var b (... a ...))
(var c (... b ...))
In Arc 3.2, a `do` is a macro which expands into a `fn`, which is a primitive builtin form. We could swap this, so that `fn` was a macro and the function body would expand into a `do` form.
Thus, for example, `(fn () a b c)` would expand into `($fn () (do a b c))`, where `$fn` is the primitive, builtin function form.
Many macros such as `def` and `let` that have bodies expand into a `fn`s, and this change would mean that the body of these forms would also be a `do`.
For example, `(def foo () a b c)` expands (roughly) into `(assign foo (fn () a b c)`; which in turn would expand into `(assign foo ($fn () (do a b c)))`
Thus, in most places where we have a body where we might like to use `var`, there'd be a `do` in place which could implement it.
Why go to this trouble? `var` can't be a macro since a macro can only expand itself -- it doesn't have the ability to manipulate code that appears after it. However `do`, as a macro, can do whatever it wants with the code it's expanding, including looking to see if one of the expressions passed to it starts with `var`.
As macro, this could be an optional feature. Rather than being built in to the language where it was there whether you wanted it or not, if you didn't like internal definitions you wouldn't have the load the version of `do` which implemented `var`.
A further complication is what to do with lexical scope. If I write something like,
(let var (fn (x) (prn "varnish " x)
I'm clearly intending to use `var` as a variable. Similar to having lexical variables override macros, I wouldn't want `var` to become a "reserved keyword" in the sense that I now couldn't use it as a variable if I wanted to.
The Arc compiler knows of course which lexical variables have been defined at the point where a macro is being expanded. (In ac.scm the list of lexical variables is passed around in `env`). We could provide this context to macros using a Racket parameter.