On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 07:16:05AM -0400, Michele Simionato wrote: > Cool! But I would get the same effect if "match" and "more-macros" would > (declare (run-time-macros)), right? I still think this would be the natural > solution, since it is natural to think that `eval` knows about all standard > Chicken extensions, the same that are enabled in the interpreter by default, > unless I specify a r5rs environment. As you know, I really wish for > consistent behavior between interpreted code and compiled code.
I second that wish! > I changed the code according to you suggestions and I don't see any > error now. I am happy with that, who knows what I did before? ;) That's the problem, it's often hard to keep track of all these switches and options that deal with macros, run-time vs compile-time etc. Peter -- http://www.student.kun.nl/peter.bex -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth
pgpfgt1DycfzA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
