Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/5] List scrutiny special cases

[Jörg F. Wittenberger]

Am 09.09.2014 um 15:34 schrieb Moritz Heidkamp:
> John Cowan <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Thanks, that's helpful.  The trouble is that such a file is an internal
> > (not publicly documented, unstable) format.  So if I want to ship portable
> > code along with type information for Chicken, I have to:
> >
> > 1) insert the type declarations in the code
> >
> > 2) compile with the -emit-type-file option
> >
> > 3) strip out the declarations again
> >
> > 4) hope the .types file continues to work with new compiler releases
> Wait, what? Why not just something like this:
>
>    (cond-expand
>      (chicken
>        (include "chicken-type-decls.scm"))
>      (else))

Note also that the type declarations are intentionally compatible to be 
"macro-defined away" like this

(define-macro (: . rest) '(begin))
(define-macro (the type val) val)


> > That's really intolerable.  I suppose if I confine myself to : and
> > define-type, then I could ship my code along with macros that turn them
> > into (begin).
> FTR, there is the type-stubs egg which defines those macros and some
> more. It's purpose is to make code compatible with CHICKENS that didn't
> yet have the type syntax but could be used for portability purposes,
> too.
>
> Moritz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers