> This brings up the obvious question: what should we do with > (chicken expand)? I was considering a patch to rename it to > (chicken syntax) like we have in c-l-r, but should we then also > rename the expand.scm file to syntax.scm? I think this would > be the most sensible thing to do. > > But if we do that, this makes the name of chicken-syntax.scm a bit > confusing, as it doesn't contain the chicken.syntax implementation. > Perhaps we should first decide what to do with the macros defined in > chicken-syntax.scm before finalizing what we do with expand.scm. > > 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. > > I honestly don't know what the best course of action is. > > I'd also like to hear what the other core members think.
(chicken syntax), and keep expand.scm. Don't overdo it. felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
