Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values

[Alex Shinn]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Felix <address@hidden> wrote:

From: Alex Shinn <address@hidden>

Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:39:43 +0900

> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:49:15PM +0200, Felix wrote:
>> > The patch looks ok to me, even though I'm not sure the benefit of having
>> > this feature outweights the added complexity, apart from having a little
>> > bit of extra consistence.
>>
>> Note that this makes define-values r7rs-compliant.
>> The alternative is to keep the old definition and provide the slightly
>> more complicated one in the new "r7rs egg", but I don't know how to make
>> the internal definitions syntax stuff extensible.
>>
>
> If you wanted to go this route you could just grab the portable
> reference implementation of define-values, no need to touch
> internals.

This wouldn't work for internal definitions, I think. Is "define-values"
allowed for local definitions in R7RS?

It's just syntax which expands into internal definitions.

The only way it could not work is with an implementation

which looks for internal defines statically before expanding

the lambda body.

-- 

Alex