On Nov 27, 2006, at 11:32 PM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On 11/28/06, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/28/06, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Looking at the current psyntax source I notice the use of
'gensym?'.
> Now, given the Chez Scheme providence, the use of this makes sense.
> However, implementing it in Chicken requires changes.
>
Sorry, I might be a bit on the slow side, but what about
(define (gensym? x)
(and (symbol? x) (not (##sys#interned-symbol? x))))
(I tried to point this out by mentioning the previously attached
psyntax.scm which contains this code Perhaps you didn't notice, or
perhaps I misunderstand your intentions completely. If it is the
latter, Sorry - just ignore me).
No it is me. I guess I wanted to distinguish the results of 'string-
>uninterned-symbol' from 'gensym' but in practice it doesn't make a
difference.
Thanks,
Kon
cheers,
felix
--
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8081/blog/blog.ssp
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
