On 5/29/05, Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. >
Yes, consistency is a very worthwhile goal. But let me throw in a few obscure technical details again: declaring run-time-macros in the include-files will compile all the expander code into the compiled library/executable. Usually eval is not used, or only for small things, and here all the code is just bloat. Moreover if you use hygienic macros at run-time, the expander code is useless, since psyntax uses it's own expanders (they can't be shared). Taking into account that it is relatively easy to concoct a bigeval extension I propose to leave it that way. Chicken is a hog already. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
