[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values

From: Alex Shinn
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:29:38 +0900

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Alex Shinn <address@hidden> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Felix <address@hidden> wrote:
>> "define-values" can not simply expand into a bunch of "defines".
>> To allow it to be intermixed with "define" in internal definitions,
>> it needs be special cased, due to the use of "call-with-values" (which
>> would "break" the sequence of definitions and treat all following
>> forms of the body as non-definitions). Or not?
> No, the call to call-with-values is wrapped in a definition too.
> It really is turtles all the way down.
>> BTW, where can I find the portable reference implementation you
>> mentioned?
> In Section 7.3 of the ninth draft, pp. 69-70.  Unfortunately,
> seems to be down, but it's normally at
> <>.
> There's a temporary copy at <>.

Very clever, indeed. Thanks for the link. Rather inefficient,
but clever.

Sorry, what I described was a variation of the same theme.
If you do what I described instead of what I coded, and be
sure to pass a lambda with the same signature (in temp vars)
as the define-values to call-with-values then there is zero

Note the following implementation from 2007 follows this approach:


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]