Dan Leslie scripsit:
#;3 foo#bar
1
IMO the value of such symbols is a detail of Chicken implementation
that nobody ought to count on. It is not like Common Lisp's foo::bar,
which is explicitly exposed as a feature of the language.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I did that just to keep the example short. The effect is the same if I
did the additional steps to import the module.
-Dan
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Dan Leslie scripsit:
#;3 foo#bar
1
IMO the value of such symbols is a detail of Chicken implementation
that
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
- There is an include file (mini-srfi-1.scm) that holds the
procedures that are currently needed. It is included by several
units, mostly compiler units.
This sounds like the Right Thing. We'll need some documentation on
what mini-srfi-1 supports; in
Hello!
I pushed a branch (drop-srfi-1) for extracting srfi-1 from
chicken-core. I thought it might be easier to handle than a patch
because I'm not sure if everybody agrees on the way it's been
implemented, and some things may change.
Here a few notes:
- There is an include file
From: Peter Bex pe...@more-magic.net
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] extracting srfi-1 from chicken 5
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:27:38 +0100
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 05:23:11PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
- There is an include file (mini-srfi-1.scm) that holds the
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 05:23:11PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
- There is an include file (mini-srfi-1.scm) that holds the
procedures that are currently needed. It is included by several
units, mostly compiler units.
This sounds like the Right Thing. We'll
