On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 09:06:08PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > That example just shows the mechanism, and it is not really a good > example (I wrote it). What I am thinking of, as reference scenario, is > an infix-to-prefix macro with infrastructure that allows to define new > binary operators, in which the operator name is not necessarily equal to > the name of the function that implements the operation itself. > > So it should go like this: > > (define (spiffy-operation X Y) > (do-something-spiffy-with X Y)) > > (define-infix-binary-operator spiffy > (right-binding-power 55) > ... > (procedure spiffy-operation)) > > (infix 2 * 3 + 88 spiffy 99)
I don't quite understand this example. Nevertheless, I still get the feeling that this is a concept that's unnecessary. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
