Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] FQN woes

2017-05-27 Thread Peter Bex
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:56:23PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > Thanks, I've pushed the first of these directly. I've also attached > signoffs for the second, third (squashed) and fourth, editorialised > slightly in the tests. In particular I've added a Windows test, which > was missing. Thanks

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] FQN woes

2017-05-23 Thread Evan Hanson
Hi Lemon, On 2017-05-15 20:27, lemonboy wrote: > After some more testing I've got a revised and hopefully better patchset. Thanks, I've pushed the first of these directly. I've also attached signoffs for the second, third (squashed) and fourth, editorialised slightly in the tests. In particular

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] FQN woes

2017-05-15 Thread lemonboy
After some more testing I've got a revised and hopefully better patchset. Please review with care, Lemonboy On 10 May 2017 at 11:00, Evan Hanson wrote: > Hey Lemonboy, > > On 2017-05-09 16:20, lemonboy wrote: >> since both `##sys#macro-environment` and

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] FQN woes

2017-05-10 Thread Evan Hanson
Hey Lemonboy, On 2017-05-09 16:20, lemonboy wrote: > since both `##sys#macro-environment` and `##sys#current-environment` > are alists whose keys are unqualified symbol names it doesn't make > sense to use `var` as lookup key since after the initial lookup of > `var0` against the environment we

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] FQN woes

2017-05-09 Thread lemonboy
Hello hackers, since both `##sys#macro-environment` and `##sys#current-environment` are alists whose keys are unqualified symbol names it doesn't make sense to use `var` as lookup key since after the initial lookup of `var0` against the environment we possibly get back a fully-qualified symbol