On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:40:28AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote: > I can imagine those macros going into (chicken base) and/or some > > other modules, but a (chicken syntax) module with them in it makes > > sense too. Then we could just rename (chicken syntax) on the > > c-l-r page to (chicken expand) and keep expand.scm as-is. > > That sounds right to me. The R7RS Yellow Edition (next after the current > Orange Edition) will focus on syntax, and I plan to propose that all the > macros added to the large language be put in a single (scheme syntax) > library, possibly including SRFIs 2, 8, 17, 26, 31 .... Keeping the macro > expansion machinery in (chicken expand) makes sense to me as well.
Good to know, it makes sense to make CHICKEN's structure match R7RS. On the other hand, the (scheme base) library contains things like syntax-rules, and, or, define-record-type, all the "let" variants and so on, so it makes equal sense for us to include all the "standard" CHICKEN macros in (chicken base). Having them in (chicken base) feels a bit less arbitrary, too: otherwise users will need to (import (chicken base)) for things like add1 and error, while they need to (import (chicken syntax)) for and-let* and define-inline. And define-record-type would probably go into (chicken base) too, since it's in R7RS (scheme base). So why have some macros in (chicken syntax) and others in (chicken base)? Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
