Dirk Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marius Vollmer wrote: > >> Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Ah, no, I see this is still not right. scm_m_generalized_set_x is >> > using scm_macroexp, but it's not defined at all under >> > --disable-deprecated. >> > >> > Looks like this was a change by Marius not so long ago. Dunno if >> > it should be using scm_macroexp, or something else now. >> >> I don't know either. Dirk, what would be The Right Thing here? > > The goal is, to make the following possible: > > (set! (@ some-module some-variable) value) > > The current solution goes beyond that, by allowing any macro at the > place of the target of the set! macro. My assumption is, that this is > not intended, but just accepted as a side effect.
Hmm, the desire to make (set! (@ ...) ...) work was the inspiration for doing macro expansion of the target of 'set!', but that macro expansion is intended to be a real feature, not just a side effect. I actually wasn't asking about fixing the specification of 'set!', only about fixing its implementation. You say that there is no good replacement for scm_macroexp yet, so I'll go with your suggestion 1: making scm_macroexp static in eval.c. Whether a macro-expandin 'set!' is a good idea or not is a different question... -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
