Re: [Chicken-hackers] cond-expand and macros

[Kon Lovett]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:15 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> Kon Lovett scripsit:
>
> > 'cond-expand' uses a function that ensures the tested symbol is a
> > keyword, so 'foo' & '#:foo' are legal.
>
> Fair enough.  But in Chicken 4 syntax-rules macros, the non-keyword  
> form
> doesn't match, only the keyword form.  That makes no sense.  It's not
> that cond-expand as a whole isn't being recognized, because it is;
> it throws an error because there is no match.

My hypothesis (I didn't check) is the non-keyword symbol is run thru a  
"hygiene" regimen; keywords cannot be identifiers so exempt. Maybe:

        (syntax-rules (foo)
                ((_ ?x ?y)
                        (cond-expand
                                (foo ...

might do something useful.

> --
> "The serene chaos that is Courage, and the phenomenon   address@hidden
> of Unopened Consciousness have been known to the        John Cowan
> Great World eons longer than Extaboulism."
> "Why is that?" the woman inquired.
> "Because I just made that word up", the Master said wisely.
>        --Kehlog Albran, The Profit             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Best Wishes,
Kon