Michele La Monaca scripsit:
> This nonsense seems to be valid syntax:
>
> #;1> (and-let* ((foobar 1 2 3)) foobar)
I grabbed the Chibi definition and translated it into Chicken. Unfortunately,
(use and-let) does not override the core definition for some reason.
Here it is with and-let* changed to and-let (no star):
(module and-let (and-let)
(import scheme)
(define-syntax and-let
(syntax-rules ()
((and-let () . body)
(begin #t . body))
((and-let ((var expr)))
expr)
((and-let ((expr)))
expr)
((and-let (expr)) ; Extension: in SRFI-2 this can only be a var ref
expr)
((and-let ((var expr) . rest) . body)
(let ((var expr))
(and var (and-let rest . body))))
((and-let ((expr) . rest) . body)
(and expr (and-let rest . body)))
((and-let (expr . rest) . body) ; Same extension as above
(let ((tmp expr))
(and tmp (and-let rest . body)))))))
It rejects the above example with an undefined-variable error.
--
John Cowan <[email protected]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Sir, I quite agree with you, but what are we two against so many?
--George Bernard Shaw,
to a man booing at the opening of _Arms and the Man_
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
