Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Decontaminate the "scheme" module by moving nonstandard syntactic definitions

[Peter Bex]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 08:23:29PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:18:23PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > Nice work, applied.
> > 
> > On 2017-10-28 21:18, Peter Bex wrote:
> > > PS: Does "syntax" belong in (chicken base) or in (chicken syntax)?
> > 
> > I'd say (chicken syntax) makes more sense, unless there's a technical
> > reason why that would be difficult.
> 
> I just had a quick look and it would mean we'd have to hand-craft
> chicken.syntax.import.scm, as this would then be the only macro it
> exports.  So maybe chicken.base is fine after all?

Hm, that is, unless we decide to put begin-for-syntax into chicken.syntax
too.  Then it would declare two macros.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature