On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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? >
"define-record-type" (SRFI-9) should be sufficient. The problem is that it is not that easy to construct identifiers in hygienic macros (or it probably is, I don't know, I haven't thought about it very much, yet. There are many loose ends in the moment since so much changes). cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
