On Sep 1, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Dan Muresan wrote: >> Right. My attempt to implement such a strategy is described on >> the ExtendingRequire wiki page. I came very close to getting it >> working, but in the end I gave up because of cases like this: >> (define-syntax foo >> (syntax-rules () >> ((_) (require-at-expansion-time 'foo)))) > > I can't find read-file, so here's a simpler experiment based on > your macro-expand approach:
The experiments you list all extend the run-time syntactic environment, not the compile-time environment. This means that they would have the same problem as the one I described with my srfi-8 example. Maybe I misread your message where you described Chicken's require- for-syntax. Does Chicken's require-for-syntax extend the syntactic environment at run-time, or at compile-time? I cannot find a description of require-for-syntax in Chicken's documentation, but I admit I am not trying very hard to do so. -Felix _______________________________________________ Larceny-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/larceny-users
