>>>>> felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi! It's silent in here.... So, let me use this moment to give
> some progress info on the state of the "hygienic" chicken that I'm
> currently working on.
[...]
> This hygienic chicken represents in my humble opinion the direction
> into which chicken should go. It breaks with backward compatibility
> in quite a number of points and will require major effort to port all
> eggs to (some eggs will have to be dropped). It would be helpful if
> the chicken users and hackers take a moment to consider whether this
> is acceptable and right, or whether we should keep the current
> system, which is less scalable in terms of modularity, but
> nevertheless quite stable.
While my opinion hardly matters now (as I haven't been doing
anything with Chicken for a few months on), I believe that the
``hygienic'' approach to macros, the ability to choose the set
of bindings being imported, and the separately-compilable ``for
macros'' libraries facilitate code clarity, and thus are very
valuable additions to any development environment.
> Please feel free to ask questions and please report any bugs you'll
> find. I will update the manual and announce it once I'm ready. You
> can look in tests/module-tests.scm and of course the sources for
> first hints at how things work.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
