[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Made a start with CHICKEN 5 proposal

From: Alex Shinn
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Made a start with CHICKEN 5 proposal
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:20:28 +0900

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Felix Winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:

IIRC, full R7RS-compatibility requires "(import-for-syntax (r7rs))" or
something like this. I was wondering about that, since it would be
quite a barrier for portable code to have to take care of this.  Or
can we simply make this implicit in the "define-library" macro?

There's no import-for-syntax in R7RS small.  In fact,
there's nothing related to phasing at all - since only
syntax-rules is supported, there are trivially no phasing

The only potentially controversial decision wrt macros
is that we did not provide the equivalent of Chicken's

  (export (syntax: macro-id ids-expanded-to ...))

instead requiring the macro expander simply detect
such indirect references.  It's not all that commonly
needed, so if it's difficult for Chicken to do this it can
be considered a low-priority todo.  Authors of libraries
which want to use this idiom can always cond-expand
to provide the additional exports explicitly for Chicken.


reply via email to

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