[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-hackers] require, require-extension-for-syntax, and the in

From: felix . winkelmann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] require, require-extension-for-syntax, and the initial macro environment
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:31:54 +0100

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

The former, yes. The latter is a SRFI, even though few support it.

> 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).

Perhaps some introductory section on the module system would be

> 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.

Not sure what is the question here... But I would tend to the latter.


reply via email to

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