Hi Andreas,
I’m all for your suggestion.
Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes:
> + (define-syntax define-fxop*
> + (syntax-rules ()
> + ((_ name op)
> + (define name
> + (case-lambda
> + ((x y)
> + (assert-fixnum x y)
> + (op x y))
> + (args
> + (assert-fixnums args)
> + (apply op args)))))))
> +
> + (define-fxop* fx=? =)
How about making something like this (untested):
(define-syntax define-fxop*
(syntax-rules ()
((_ name op)
(define-syntax name
(lambda (s)
(syntax-case s ()
((_ x y)
#'(begin
(assert-fixnum x y)
(op x y)))
((_ args ...)
#'(apply op args))
(_ #'op)))))))
This way, there’d be no procedure call involved and ‘=’, ‘+’, etc. would
use the corresponding instruction in the base case.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
