I just pushed a patch that should do the right thing; take a look. Vladimir
2010/1/27 szergling <[email protected]>: > On 1/27/10, Vladimir Sedach <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've also found that annoying about macros. I'm going to see what can be >> done. >> >> Vladimir > > Thank you. Look forward to it. > > By the way, I think implicit return is a very useful feature. > > Yong. > > >> 2010/1/26 szergling <[email protected]>: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> I was wondering if there's an idiom for skipping the generation of a >>> form completely at the top-level. This is mildly related to the >>> implicit return feature currently being trialled. Here's an example: >>> suppose I'm trying to skip over this form: >>> >>> (in-package :something-something) >>> >>> by using >>> >>> (defpsmacro in-package (x) nil) >>> >>> An in-package form then compiles to "null;" >>> >>> This spurious output may result in errors (I'm using ps to convert >>> my Lisp code to Actionscript). >>> >>> How about using (values) to indicate explicitly that something >>> doesn't have any return values? >>> >>> Yong. >>> > > <<snip>> > > _______________________________________________ > parenscript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
