[Top][All Lists]

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

[Chicken-hackers] require, require-extension-for-syntax, and the initial

From: Peter Bex
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] require, require-extension-for-syntax, and the initial macro environment
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:55:51 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

Hi all,

I was just moving things around in the CHICKEN 5 manual, and ran
into "require-extension-for-syntax".  I thought we had removed
it and require-extension, but apparently both are part of the
(chicken base) module.

I'm not sure why we still need these (probably because require-extension
is a SRFI (55)?).  In any case, shouldn't require-extension-for-syntax
be moved to (chicken syntax) for consistency?  We have begin-for-syntax
and define-for-syntax in there, as well as import-for-syntax.  It only
makes sense to have require-for-syntax in there as well.

But honestly, I think it's better to just drop require-extension-for-syntax
and perhaps even require-extension.

One more question: Where should we document "the initial (nameless) macro
environment"?  For example, cond-expand and module and such need a place
to be documented too, and they're strictly speaking not part of a module
(but it's weird to have to look them up somewhere completely different).

OK, one more question and then I'll stop :)
What about this note in expand.som:
;; TODO: Eventually, cond-expand should move to the
;; (chicken base) module to match r7rs.  Keeping it in the initial env
;; makes it a whole lot easier to write portable CHICKEN 4 & 5 code.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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