On Jan 15, Per Bothner wrote:
> Is this (rough sketch) supposed to work:
>
> (define (process form)
> ... do something with form ...)
>
> (define-syntax foo
> (lambda (form)
> (syntax-case form ()
> ((_ . f) (process form)))))
>
> (foo ...)
>
> I.e. can a syntax-case macros make use of a function
> define in the same module or top-level?
Yes, but syntax processing still happens at a different phase, so you
need to lift the `process' definition. The easiest way to do this is
by changing the `define' above to `define-for-syntax'.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
