On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for writing this up! It's a very clear document in most points, > especially the examples on explicit renaming are excellent. The > documentation on 'syntax' could use some example code, the current > description is a little terse.
Quite true. "Syntax" is actually sort of weird: it is used in the implementation of "syntax-rules", and really does nearly the same as "quote", but does not strip syntactical context information from any identifiers appearing in the literal. You normally should not need this. > > Small aside: There's now wiki syntax for procedure and syntax > definitions at http://chicken.wiki.br/wiki-syntax-chicken > Using this will make the wiki more easily scannable by automatic > tools in the future. At least, we hope it will :) Ok, I'll try to make more use if it. > >> Feedback is welcome. I'm not sure on the module syntax, but found >> this one (taken from psyntax) to be relatively natural and simple. > > Yeah, I mostly agree. It is slightly annoying that all code inside the > module always ends up indented with such a system, though. (minor > advantage: it allows you to let one file define more than one module) It also simplifies context management. Any other structuring mechanism must be file-based, which is sometimes too course grained or forces you to split everything into little files. But it's in the end just a matter of taste. > >> Different naming and syntax are still possible, of course. > > I always liked the external definitions from the old scheme 48 system, > but they're not as simple. It shouldn't be too hard to create a wrapper macro for this. The separation of interface and structure would require compile-time registration of interfaces, but that's not hard. I'll write that at some stage (much simpler, no config language, etc.). cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
