Actually if I'm going to be defining my own macro, I usually just do (define-syntax carn (syntax-rules () ((_ n e) (let ((p e)) (if (pair? p) (car p) (error 'n "not a pair" p)))))) and pass an identifier to carn... and then I can get rid of the check by adding another line to the macro... but it doesn't look as nice as just using car
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >> is the number of kinds of situtation where source file information >> will be attached to errors such as car's "not a pair" likely to >> increase? > > Yes, but I don't know when. In the meanwhile, you can cook a 95% > solution yourself by defining your own "car" as a macro. Do you > know how? Any takers for the challenge? > > Aziz,,, >
