On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Jussi Piitulainen <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Alex Shinn writes:
> ...
> > Assuming we don't want to add a long discussion of the definition of
> > visitation for something that is fairly simple in the small
> > language, I would suggest:
> >
> > Similarly, during the expansion of a library {\cf foo}, if any
> > syntax keywords imported from another library {\cf (bar)} are
> > needed to expand the library, then the corresponding syntax
> > definitions of {\cf (bar)} must be expanded before the expansion
> > of {\cf (foo)}.
>
> Is there a reason for not having the first occurrence of foo in
> parentheses?
>
I presume not - I was just copying the previous
suggestion. "foo" by itself is not a valid library
name so we'd want to wrap it in both places.
--
Alex
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
