Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values

[Alex Shinn]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Felix <address@hidden> wrote:

From: Alex Shinn <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:16:55 +0900

> 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,
>> > trac.sacrideo.us seems to be down, but it's normally at
>> > <
>> http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/r7rs-draft-9.pdf
>> >.
>> > There's a temporary copy at <
>> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/r7rs-draft-9.pdf>.
>>
>> 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
> overhead.

Where did you describe it? What do you code where? Something
must have gone wrong in this conversation.

Possibly - I was referring to my comments in:

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-hackers/2013-04/msg00033.html

-- 

Alex