Kon Lovett scripsit:
> 'cond-expand' uses a function that ensures the tested symbol is a
> keyword, so 'foo' & '#:foo' are legal.
Fair enough. But in Chicken 4 syntax-rules macros, the non-keyword form
doesn't match, only the keyword form. That makes no sense. It's not
that cond-expand as a whole isn't being recognized, because it is;
it throws an error because there is no match.
--
"The serene chaos that is Courage, and the phenomenon co...@ccil.org
of Unopened Consciousness have been known to the John Cowan
Great World eons longer than Extaboulism."
"Why is that?" the woman inquired.
"Because I just made that word up", the Master said wisely.
--Kehlog Albran, The Profit http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
