Hello everyone,
I'm creating a module that exports two things, a macro and a function. The
definition of the macro happens to require the use of the function. I am
having problems creating this module. The defined macro cannot access the
function.
--Example
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 04:35:23PM -0500, Patrick Li wrote:
>
> I have a *very* ugly workaround right now.
> I define the convenience function twice. Once normally. And again within a
> begin-for-syntax form.
You can do the same trick as before:
(module module-a (convenience-function)
(import
Thanks Peter. That's perfectly good enough. As long as I'm not repeating
myself and it's transparent to the user, I can live with it. You've been
very helpful.
-Patrick
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 04:35:23PM -0500, Patrick Li wrote:
> >
> > I hav
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 16:51, Peter Bex wrote:
> This imports module-a (which can be internal and nobody has to know it's
> there) both for syntax and normally, and then re-exports the convenience
> function.
Pardon the interruption, but I wanted to check for my own
understanding: is import-for-
From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Help solving this phasing problem.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:51:05 +0100
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 04:35:23PM -0500, Patrick Li wrote:
>>
>> I have a *very* ugly workaround right now.
>> I define the convenience function twic
From: Taylor Venable
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Help solving this phasing problem.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:04:13 -0500
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 16:51, Peter Bex wrote:
>> This imports module-a (which can be internal and nobody has to know it's
>> there) both for synt
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 01:59:47PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> > This imports module-a (which can be internal and nobody has to know it's
> > there) both for syntax and normally, and then re-exports the convenience
> > function.
> >
> > Yes, this is ugly.
>
> Well, is it?
Not having an alternative doe
Peter Bex scripsit:
> begin-also-for-syntax? begin-for-both-environments? :)
I like this idea best, though better names are needed.
Personally, I would prefer begin-utriusque-phasidis, but
I can see why people might not like that.
--
As you read this, I don't want you to feel John Cowan
so
