Peter Bex scripsit:
It's pretty cool in that it supports both er/ir macros *and* syntactic
closures.
Thanks. I've updated http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/SyntaxDefinitions
accordingly.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
An observable characteristic is
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:27:11PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Define-macro was never part of any Scheme standard. Nonetheless, of
the 33 Schemes in my test suite with macros of some kind, all have
syntax-rules, 15 have define-macro (MIT is not one of them), 13 have
syntax-case, 5 have explicit
chi chic...@verge.info.tm writes:
If you use a C library that requires callbacks, like libuv for
instance, is it possible to write a procedure in chicken that will be
guaranteed to return, as the C library requires? Like, by avoiding
thread switching or call/cc or something?
Apart from using
On 03/06/15 19:00, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:27:11PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Define-macro was never part of any Scheme standard. Nonetheless, of
the 33 Schemes in my test suite with macros of some kind, all have
syntax-rules, 15 have define-macro (MIT is not one of them), 13
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:50 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
It's pretty cool in that it supports both er/ir macros *and* syntactic
closures.
Thanks. I've updated http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/SyntaxDefinitions
accordingly.
Great reference. Thanks.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:12:50AM +1200, arc wrote:
On 03/06/15 19:00, Peter Bex wrote:
It's pretty cool in that it supports both er/ir macros *and* syntactic
closures.
I was under the impression that explicit renaming macros could be
implemented in syntactic closures, and that is what is
Peter Bex scripsit:
It's just unfortunate that only Picrin bothered to implement ir-macros,
considering it's so easy to do with synclo.
MIT Scheme could probably add them if anyone sent Chris Hanson a patch.
Larceny could implement them too, I think. The trouble is that the
naive algorithm is
