On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:11 AM, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm currently working on a hygienic version of chicken (explicit-renaming + > syntax-rules) which is a first requirement for a full, macro-aware > module system (which is also being implemented). This will be fully > integrated and compatible with all special features (non-contiguous > local definitions, curried and empty "define" and DSSSL lambda-lists), > provide compiled macros (with support for the runtime-macros > option/declaration) > and proper handling of syntactic environments. This will also obsolete > all external macro expanders and provide a more uniform handling of > extensions that provide syntax.
Excellent! > The downside is that define-record and in particular define-macro have to go. define-record has to go? That's scary. I can live without define-macro (now that Alex has shown me how to do low-level macrology without it) but define-record is fundamental, no? Graham _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
