Sam TH wrote:
> Thinking about this a little more, it seems like it would run into
> some trouble with `local-expand' [1,2]. You might be able to just say
> that we delay the expansion of `lambda' bodies 'as long as possible',
> but that that point it seems like we're not gaining very much.
>
> [1]
> http://docs.plt-scheme.org/reference/stxtrans.html#(def._((quote._~23~25kernel)._local-expand))
> [2] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/scheme2007-ctf.pdf , Sections 3.4 and 4
I'm afraid I don't have time to fully understand the way-too-many forms
of PLT macros, so I can't really tell if local-expand would be a
problem. Off-hand, I don't understand why: If the expanding a lambda
body is deferred, and the lambda body contains a local-expand, then the
local-expand gets deferred.
But if someone is looking for an example of "the macro tail wagging
the Scheme dog" this may be it ...
--
--Per Bothner
[email protected] http://per.bothner.com/
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
