On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Hans Bulfone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my question is: will it still be possible to write a (er-) macro that
creates new identifiers like define-record does? from previous
postings i got differing impressions.
i know it's not considered good style to do that
hi,
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:52:17PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
It would be helpful if the chicken users and hackers take a moment
to consider whether this is acceptable and right, or whether we
should keep the current system, which is less scalable in terms of
modularity, but
On 16 May 2008, at 11:34 am, Hans Bulfone wrote:
my question is: will it still be possible to write a (er-) macro that
creates new identifiers like define-record does? from previous
postings i got differing impressions.
Yes, I think so. You expand to a form of the form (begin (define
foo
On May 14, 2008, at 10:52 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
It's silent in here So, let me use this moment to give
some progress info on the state of the hygienic
chicken that I'm currently working on. In
As someone who has been searching for a Scheme to use
I couldn't be happier to see this
On May 16, 2008, at 6:34 AM, Hans Bulfone wrote:
my question is: will it still be possible to write a (er-) macro that
creates new identifiers like define-record does?
In most hygienic macro systems it's possible to break hygiene for
the purposes of introducing identifiers. I don't believe
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just tested on NetBSD and it didn't build at first. It gave me
this error:
gcc -shared \
-shared chicken.import.o -o chicken.import.so \
-lchicken -lm
ld: cannot find -lchicken
gmake[1]: ***
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Leonardo Valeri Manera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I lament the loss of match, as I've become enamoured of
explicit-renaming macros with pattern matching. Will this still be
doable with matchable?
Yes.
cheers,
felix
On 14 May 2008, at 3:52 pm, felix winkelmann wrote:
This hygienic chicken represents in my humble opinion the direction
into
which chicken should go. It breaks with backward compatibility in
quite
a number of points and will require major effort to port all eggs
to (some
eggs will have to be
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 04:54:21PM +0100, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
You have my full support! And I'll rewrite my hygienic misc-macros to
work with ER, just to fit into the new world order ;-)
I, for one, welcome our new hygienic overlords.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
The
Hi!
It's silent in here So, let me use this moment to give
some progress info on the state of the hygienic
chicken that I'm currently working on. In
https://chicken.wiki.br/svn/chicken-eggs/chicken/branches/hygienic
you'll find a modified version of chicken that has been completely
2008/5/14 felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It would be helpful if the chicken users and
hackers take a moment to consider whether this is acceptable and right,
or whether we should keep the current system, which is less scalable
in terms of modularity, but nevertheless quite stable.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:52:17PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
Hi!
It's silent in here So, let me use this moment to give
some progress info on the state of the hygienic
chicken that I'm currently working on. In
https://chicken.wiki.br/svn/chicken-eggs/chicken/branches/hygienic
Felix,
Thanks for your ongoing efforts to improve Chicken, I think
hygienic compilable macros is definitely the way
forward. Unfortunately, I am rather fond of pattern matching, and this
is the ML feature that I miss the most in Scheme. Most of my eggs will
break without pattern matching,
13 matches
Mail list logo
