Thanks, Felix, for that in-depth reply. I suspected that the linking
issue would be significant, but it's good to hear your thoughts on the
matter.
Will
On 10/23/07, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/07, Will Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious if you've given any
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,
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
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 here that
