On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:06:59PM -0500, Zbigniew wrote:
> OK, try this.
>
> bar.scm:
>
> (define-extension bar)
>
> (define (fac n)
> (if (zero? n)
> 1
> (* n (fac (- n 1))) ) )
>
> foo.scm:
>
> #+compiling (declare (uses bar))
>
> (use bar)
> (write (fac 10)) (newline)
>
> W
On 10/20/07, Rick Taube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ahh! thanks very much! it would be nice to add a line about this
> differnece in the readme's installation section.
>
Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
cheers,
felix
___
Chicken-users mailing list
C
On 10/21/07, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why is the difference between compiled and interpreted mode there?
> The meaning of these things isn't fundamentally different between the two
> modes, is it? Can't (declare) statements be parsed by the interpreter as
> well?
>
> I understand t
Peter Bex scripsit:
> Why is the difference between compiled and interpreted mode there?
> The meaning of these things isn't fundamentally different between the two
> modes, is it? Can't (declare) statements be parsed by the interpreter as
> well?
They are trivially parsed and ignored with a war
On 10/21/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
>
> > Why is the difference between compiled and interpreted mode there?
> > The meaning of these things isn't fundamentally different between the two
> > modes, is it? Can't (declare) statements be parsed by the interpreter
Looks like it's time for me to write some more documentation :-)
Below I've included all the ways I've found to include code, along with the
pages from the wiki where I got the info. If anyone who knows of more of either
could tack that on, I'll start working on untangling the mess so new users
Ozzi scripsit:
> (require-extension ...)
> (use ...)
These are exact synonyms: require-extension is a superset of SRFI-55's,
whereas use is shorter and Chicken-specific.
The argument is a library unit or an egg name. Both the interpreter
and the compiler accept these forms, and arrange to do t
On 10/22/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (require ...)
>
> Procedure equivalent of require-extension, so the argument is evaluated.
>
(require-for-syntax ...)
Equivalent to "require", but loads the file at compile-time (identical
to "require" in the interpreter).
(I'd like to add
Felix,
> (I'd like to add here that there are about 50 ways of doing almost
> everything in a reasonable featureful Lisp dialect. If a particular form
> is not found useful or estethically pleasing, one can simply use
> a different flavor. TIMTOWTDI, FWIW. Yes, this is confusing for beginners,
> a
