On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 07:07:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Felix Winkelmann scripsit: > > > Actually not quite. Low-level macros are still seen, as the > > low-level expander is used by default - high-level expanders > > just pre-expand all macros usually. > > Well, it's true that define-macro definitions made after you (use > syntax-case) expander are correctly processed,
This would explain why the order matter in the case of the hart bug, but it doesn't explain why *both* orders fail. > However, this is not true of syntactic-closures, alexpander, or > riaxpander. Those cope with both previously-defined and newly > defined low-level macros. Should I just use one of those, then? Do they define syntax-rules? -Robin -- Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
