On Jan 15, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 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'.
Apologies for the noise -- I confused the mailing list it came
through (and certainly did not intend to start any flames).
--
((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
