On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:12:01PM +0200, Andy Wingo wrote: > > If I change (define val init) to (define-for-syntax val init), the > > generated "var" macro will pick up on it. > > I am suprised that you needed to do define-for-syntax here, as the > *value* of the `val' bindings is not needed at expansion time; the > expander must only note that there is such a binding.
Yeah, this is probably another bug :) We've been cleaning up a lot of these kinds of bugs lately, but we're not completely there yet :) > This is what Andre was originally referring to, these "generated > toplevel definitions". This would be the correct expansion if "val" > were bound in module A, and AIUI that has been chicken's argument, that > it treats all identifiers as bound, and therefore this expansion is > valid. I think it may be possible to "fix" this. I don't know, I'd have to dig into it some more. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
