Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] inline-syntax and require-extension-for-syntax

[Felix]

From: John Cowan <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] inline-syntax and 
require-extension-for-syntax
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 19:46:52 -0400

> Felix scripsit:
> 
>> 1) "require-extension-for-syntax"/"use-for-syntax", which does
>>    the same as the often occurring idiom
>> 
>>      (begin-for-syntax (require-library FOO))
>>      (import-for-syntax FOO)
>> 
>>    So this loads an extension and imports it, but at expansion time.
> 
> I don't usually commit this sort of remark, but it does occur to me
> that if Chicken would just lift the restriction that makes `import` fail
> if a module is not loaded, rather than quietly loading it behind the
> scenes, it would not be necessary to pile feature upon feature in this
> fashion: `import-for-syntax` would do it all.

Because in chicken loading/linking and import are separated to support
different loading/linking models.


cheers,
felix