[Chicken-users] 4.8.0.5 syntax weirdness
Dear chicken-users; I have a simple program that does most of its heavy lifting at compile time. To demonstrate the issue, I've written two stubs (as simple as I could make them but still show the issue I'm having). File number one is called ticket-stub.scm: -8 (use s (srfi 1)) (define-syntax create-tickets (ir-macro-transformer (lambda (f i c) `(list ,@(filter-map (lambda (x) (if (s-contains? enemy- x) #f (s-prepend friendly- x))) cells) (print (first (create-tickets))) -8 It should print out the word friendly-horse after this: csc -extend ticket-stub-compilation.scm ticket-stub.scm ./ticket_stub Here is its sister file, ticket-stub-compilation.scm: -8 (use s (srfi 1) anaphora) (define (gen-cells) ;; In the real version of this, this is not only an expensive ;; operation but it's also dependent on io and data that I only want ;; to read at compile time. (It's going through a large collection of ;; XML files and selecting a small subset of that for this program.) ;; For the purposes of this stub, it's simply some strings. (let ((n (random 10))) (if (zero? n) '() (cons (if (odd? n) enemy-horse horse) (gen-cells) (define cells (let big-cells ((cells (gen-cells))) (if ( (length cells) 3) cells (big-cells (gen-cells) -8 When compiled with this version of Chicken: CHICKEN (c) 2008-2013, The Chicken Team (c) 2000-2007, Felix L. Winkelmann Version 4.8.0.5 (stability/4.8.0) (rev 5bd53ac) linux-unix-gnu-x86-64 [ 64bit manyargs dload ptables ] compiled 2013-10-03 on aeryn.xorinia.dim (Darwin) I get this error: Error: during expansion of (create-tickets ...) - unbound variable: s-contains? followed by the call history, and then Error: shell command terminated with non-zero exit status 17920: '/usr/bin/chicken' 'ticket-stub.scm' -output-file 'ticket-stub.c' -extend ticket-stub-compilation.scm However, when compiled with this version of Chicken: CHICKEN (c)2008-2011 The Chicken Team (c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann Version 4.7.0 linux-unix-gnu-x86-64 [ 64bit manyargs dload ptables ] compiled 2011-09-05 on gladstone.duckburg.org (Linux) We get our friendly-horse. Am I doing something wrong or have I found a bug? (Weird that there’s an EOL space on the line “Version 4.7.0 ” but I guess that’s some Debian quirk.) 4.7.0 is the version that’s in Debian Stable. Sandra ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] 4.8.0.5 syntax weirdness
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:26:08PM +0100, Sandra Snan wrote: Dear chicken-users; I have a simple program that does most of its heavy lifting at compile time. To demonstrate the issue, I've written two stubs (as simple as I could make them but still show the issue I'm having). File number one is called ticket-stub.scm: -8 (use s (srfi 1)) (define-syntax create-tickets (ir-macro-transformer (lambda (f i c) `(list ,@(filter-map (lambda (x) (if (s-contains? enemy- x) #f (s-prepend friendly- x))) cells) (print (first (create-tickets))) -8 Hello Sandra, The above program uses the procedures provided by the s egg at expansion time, so you need to load and import them at the syntax level: (begin-for-syntax (use s)) Or, in newer CHICKENs: (use-for-syntax s) The reason it worked with 4.7.0 and not with 4.8.0 is that this is really a bug: at compile time, procedures imported for runtime should not be available unless they're explicitly imported. That's the entry in 4.8.0's NEWS: Fixed a bug that caused imported identifiers to leak into the macroexpansion/compile-time environment Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] 4.8.0.5 syntax weirdness
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:54:03 +0100, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:26:08PM +0100, Sandra Snan wrote: Dear chicken-users; I have a simple program that does most of its heavy lifting at compile time. To demonstrate the issue, I've written two stubs (as simple as I could make them but still show the issue I'm having). (I realized after sending that one of the stubs could randomly generate a list without any “friendly” strings. The full program is deterministic, it just needs to trawl through a lot of data.) The above program uses the procedures provided by the s egg at expansion time, so you need to load and import them at the syntax level: Thank you so much, Peter. (begin-for-syntax (use s)) Unfortunately, this gives me “Error: unbound variable: use” Or, in newer CHICKENs: (use-for-syntax s) and this gives me “Error: unbound variable: use-for-syntax” Sandra ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
Hello, I found a Scheme implementation of the Caesar cipher on Rosetta Code. It said This was written by a novice, please review... So I reviewed it, and basically rewrote it. I think my version is much better (clearer) but since I too am a novice, I feel bad removing the novice warning. Could someone who has used Scheme longer than two weeks have a quick look at my work and tell me if I can remove the warning (or make corrections if my code is not idiomatic or something)? My version(s): http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher#Scheme Previous version: http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Caesar_cipheroldid=177675#scheme Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
I would use an auxiliary function char-plus to add or subtract an offset to a character: (define (caesar str n) (define (char-plus c) (let ((alpha ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)) (if (not (char-alphabetic? c)) c (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase c)) 65))) (string-ref alpha (modulo (+ i n) 26)) (list-string (map char-plus (string-list str Then here are your two examples; decryption is just encryption by the negative: (caesar To craunch the marmoset. 1) UP DSBVODI UIF NBSNPTFU. (caesar UP DSBVODI UIF NBSNPTFU. -1) TO CRAUNCH THE MARMOSET. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Daniel Carrera dcarr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I found a Scheme implementation of the Caesar cipher on Rosetta Code. It said This was written by a novice, please review... So I reviewed it, and basically rewrote it. I think my version is much better (clearer) but since I too am a novice, I feel bad removing the novice warning. Could someone who has used Scheme longer than two weeks have a quick look at my work and tell me if I can remove the warning (or make corrections if my code is not idiomatic or something)? My version(s): http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher#Scheme Previous version: http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Caesar_cipheroldid=177675#scheme Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:26:56AM -0500, Phil Bewig wrote: I would use an auxiliary function char-plus to add or subtract an offset to a character: (define (caesar str n) (define (char-plus c) (let ((alpha ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)) (if (not (char-alphabetic? c)) c (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase c)) 65))) (string-ref alpha (modulo (+ i n) 26)) (list-string (map char-plus (string-list str If you're using srfi-13, you might as well change the final line to use string-map: (string-map char-plus str) Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
Am 10.03.2014 15:51, schrieb Daniel Carrera: Hello, I found a Scheme implementation of the Caesar cipher on Rosetta Code. It said This was written by a novice, please review... So I reviewed it, and basically rewrote it. I think my version is much better (clearer) I tend to agree that your version is clearer. Especially because it's shorter and uses fewer let-scopes. As this is an exercise, I'd take an issue with the use of list-ref in the replacements. List-ref is O(n) in the size of the list. Once should try to avoid that. A first alternative would be string-ref. That would be O(1). As long as your Scheme does not use something like UTF-8 as string representation. So maybe it would be the best to resort to something like: (define replacements(apply vector (string-list rotated))) (define (caesar char) (let ((index(string-index alphabet char))) (if index (vector-ref replacements index) char))) ; Not found = Copy verbatim. Notice: I replaced the second occurrence of (string-index alphabet char) with index - the variable the result was of the first call was already bound to. I'm leaving it here as an exercise to you to figure out why. ;-) Your second version brings up a completely different consideration. The task implement a caesar chipher is slightly underspecified. That is, actually it's OK, since it would imply that you are supposed to produce a general solution. And your first version does. You second version depends on the mapping from characters to integers. It will only work on such mappings, which are accidentally compatible to ASCII for upper case letters. I'm using quotes here, because the days are long gone, when you had a reasonable chance to get your hands on a system using incompatible encodings like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Radix-50 Otherwise I'd prefer the second version for using less memory. Note however: if you wanted the your cipher to be easily adapted to more general mappings (e.g. be applicable to other character sets than upper case ASCII compatible - which would easily be parts of unicode or say HTML entities like uuml;) then the argument is reversed and your first version would be the better fit. but since I too am a novice, I feel bad removing the novice warning. Could someone who has used Scheme longer than two weeks have a quick look at my work and tell me if I can remove the warning (or make corrections if my code is not idiomatic or something)? My version(s): http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher#Scheme Previous version: http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Caesar_cipheroldid=177675#scheme Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
I used only the procedures provided by RnRS, instead of loading SRFI-13, but you could use string-map if you want to. For those who prefer to roll their own, here is a simple version of string-map! that mutates the string in place: (define (string-map! f str) (do ((i 0 (+ i 1))) ((= i (string-length str)) str) (string-set! str i (f (string-ref str i) Or you could convert to a list, perform the mapping, and convert back, as I did in my original version of the function. With string-map!, the caesar function changes to this: (define (caesar str n) (define (char-plus c) (let ((alpha ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)) (if (not (char-alphabetic? c)) c (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase c)) 65))) (string-ref alpha (modulo (+ i n) 26)) (string-map! char-plus str)) For purposes of Rosetta Code, it's probably better to avoid SRFI-13 and stay with RnRS, as in my first version of the function. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:26:56AM -0500, Phil Bewig wrote: I would use an auxiliary function char-plus to add or subtract an offset to a character: (define (caesar str n) (define (char-plus c) (let ((alpha ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)) (if (not (char-alphabetic? c)) c (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase c)) 65))) (string-ref alpha (modulo (+ i n) 26)) (list-string (map char-plus (string-list str If you're using srfi-13, you might as well change the final line to use string-map: (string-map char-plus str) Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
Thanks. I think it's fair to use SRF-13. Now that I learned some character functions from Phil, I think the following is nice and compact: (define (caesar char) (if (not (char-alphabetic? char)) char ; Return other chars verbatim. (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase char)) 65))) (integer-char (+ 65 (modulo (+ i key) 26)) (print (string-map caesar msg)) Cheers, Daniel. On 10 March 2014 16:31, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:26:56AM -0500, Phil Bewig wrote: I would use an auxiliary function char-plus to add or subtract an offset to a character: (define (caesar str n) (define (char-plus c) (let ((alpha ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)) (if (not (char-alphabetic? c)) c (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase c)) 65))) (string-ref alpha (modulo (+ i n) 26)) (list-string (map char-plus (string-list str If you're using srfi-13, you might as well change the final line to use string-map: (string-map char-plus str) Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
Daniel Carrera scripsit: (define (caesar char) (if (not (char-alphabetic? char)) char ; Return other chars verbatim. (let ((i (- (char-integer (char-upcase char)) 65))) (integer-char (+ 65 (modulo (+ i key) 26)) (print (string-map caesar msg)) This isn't i18n-safe, because char-alphabetic? can return #t on non-Latin letters. Convert to an integer first and make sure it's in the safe range. Then add a comment to the effect that this assumes a Scheme in which char-integer and integer-char preserve the ASCII range. (Almost all Schemes do so, but it's not required by R5RS.) General comments not relevant to this code: 1) Rolling your own string-map is tricky, because of the R7RS requirement that a call/cc from the mapping function work correctly: If multiple returns occur from `string-map`, the values returned by earlier returns are not mutated. 2) `Use` is Chicken-specific. There is no fully standard way to load/import a module prior to R6RS/R7RS, but at least `require-extension` (which is also implemented in Chicken) is the subject of SRFI 55. -- MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] 4.8.0.5 syntax weirdness
I couldn't quite get this to work: ticket-stub.scm 8 (use s (srfi 1)) (begin-for-syntax (import chicken) (use s (srfi))) (define-syntax create-tickets (ir-macro-transformer (lambda (f i c) `(list ,@(filter-map (lambda (x) (if (s-contains? enemy- x) #f (s-prepend friendly- x))) cells) (print (first (create-tickets))) 8 ticket-stub-compilation.scm 8 (use s (srfi 1) anaphora) (define (gen-cells) ;; In the real version of this, this is not only an expensive ;; operation but it's also dependent on io and data that I only want ;; to read at compile time. ;; For the purposes of this stub, it's simply some strings. (let ((n (random 10))) (if (zero? n) '() (cons (if (odd? n) enemy-horse horse) (gen-cells) (define cells (cons horse (gen-cells))) 8 It still can't find s-contains. If I move the entire (define-syntax create-tickets ...) sexp to the end of begin-for-syntax, it can't find create-tickets when called later. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
On 10 March 2014 17:10, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: This isn't i18n-safe, because char-alphabetic? can return #t on non-Latin letters. Convert to an integer first and make sure it's in the safe range. Then add a comment to the effect that this assumes a Scheme in which char-integer and integer-char preserve the ASCII range. (Almost all Schemes do so, but it's not required by R5RS.) ... 2) `Use` is Chicken-specific. There is no fully standard way to load/import a module prior to R6RS/R7RS, but at least `require-extension` (which is also implemented in Chicken) is the subject of SRFI 55. I am trying to write an R7RS-compliant version. R7RS would give me import, as well as char-integer and integer-char. The problem I'm having is that my code does not work when I compile it, or when I use csi -s, but it works perfectly well when I paste it directly into the csi REPL. Here is what I have: ; ; Unicode-safe. Requires an R7RS-compliant Scheme. ; (import (srfi 13)) ; String library. (define msg The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy fox.) (define key 13) (define (caesar char) (define A (char-integer #\A)) (define Z (char-integer #\Z)) (define a (char-integer #\a)) (define z (char-integer #\z)) (define c (char-integer char)) (cond ((and (= c A) (= c Z)) (integer-char (+ A (modulo (+ key (- c A)) 26 ((and (= c a) (= c z)) (integer-char (+ a (modulo (+ key (- c a)) 26 (else char))) ; Return other characters verbatim. (print (string-map caesar msg)) When I compile this and run it, I get an error saying that string-map is not defined. Same thing happens with csi -s. So clearly it is not loading SRFI-13... Any ideas? Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] 4.8.0.5 syntax weirdness
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:37:36PM +0100, Sandra Snan wrote: I couldn't quite get this to work: It still can't find s-contains. If I move the entire (define-syntax create-tickets ...) sexp to the end of begin-for-syntax, it can't find create-tickets when called later. This is unfortunate: I just tested your code and it works with 4.8.4, but not with 4.8.0.5. Most likely this was a large change we considered too dangerous to include in the stability branch. I'm not sure which of the many changes it was that fixed this. I'm afraid your only options are to stick with 4.7.0 or use the 4.8.4 development snapshot (or git master) until 4.9.0 has been released. The good news is that both the development snapshot and master should be pretty stable since we're this close to a release. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
On 10 March 2014 20:04, Daniel Carrera dcarr...@gmail.com wrote: I am trying to write an R7RS-compliant version. R7RS would give me import, as well as char-integer and integer-char. The problem I'm having is that my code does not work when I compile it, or when I use csi -s, but it works perfectly well when I paste it directly into the csi REPL. After a tip from Erik, I have isolated the issue. The (import) only works correctly if you first run (use posix). My REPL was loading posix because I loaded readline. The following code compiles and runs correctly: (use posix) ; ; Unicode-safe. Requires an R7RS-compliant Scheme. ; (import (srfi 13)) ; String library. (define msg The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy fox.) (define key 13) (define (caesar char) (define A (char-integer #\A)) (define Z (char-integer #\Z)) (define a (char-integer #\a)) (define z (char-integer #\z)) (define c (char-integer char)) (cond ((and (= c A) (= c Z)) (integer-char (+ A (modulo (+ key (- c A)) 26 ((and (= c a) (= c z)) (integer-char (+ a (modulo (+ key (- c a)) 26 (else char))) ; Return other characters verbatim. (print (string-map caesar msg)) Cheers, Daniel. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Review my Caesar Cipher?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Daniel Carrera dcarr...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 March 2014 20:04, Daniel Carrera dcarr...@gmail.com wrote: I am trying to write an R7RS-compliant version. R7RS would give me import, as well as char-integer and integer-char. The problem I'm having is that my code does not work when I compile it, or when I use csi -s, but it works perfectly well when I paste it directly into the csi REPL. After a tip from Erik, I have isolated the issue. The (import) only works correctly if you first run (use posix). My REPL was loading posix because I loaded readline. The following code compiles and runs correctly: (use posix) ; ; Unicode-safe. Requires an R7RS-compliant Scheme. ; (import (srfi 13)) ; String library. (define msg The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy fox.) (define key 13) (define (caesar char) (define A (char-integer #\A)) (define Z (char-integer #\Z)) (define a (char-integer #\a)) (define z (char-integer #\z)) (define c (char-integer char)) (cond ((and (= c A) (= c Z)) (integer-char (+ A (modulo (+ key (- c A)) 26 ((and (= c a) (= c z)) (integer-char (+ a (modulo (+ key (- c a)) 26 (else char))) ; Return other characters verbatim. (integer-char (cond ((= A c Z) (+ A (modulo (+ key (- c A)) 26))) ((= a c z) (+ a (modulo (+ key (- c A)) 26))) (else c))) (print (string-map caesar msg)) Cheers, Daniel. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] R7RS: (current-jiffy) and (jiffies-per-second)
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Daniel Carrera dcarr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I hope nobody minds an R7RS question. This list seems to have people knowledgeable of R7RS. It seems weird that R7RS would specify the functions: There's also scheme-repo...@scheme-reports.org but I doubt people mind here. (current-jiffy) -- An exact integer representing the number of jiffies (arbitrary unit of time) since some arbitrary epoch. (jiffies-per-second) -- Integer representing the number of jiffies in one second. What could possibly be the value of these functions, given that R7RS already specifies (current-second) as the number of seconds since the Unix epoch? This seems like an oddly useless concept for a language that tries to be minimalist. There are actually a number of motivations for this. (current-second) is expensive, and in the presence of NTP not guaranteed to be monotonic. It will also generally cons to return a bignum or flonum, whereas current-jiffy could always return fixnums. In general, for timing you want to use jiffies, and for calendar operations you want want seconds. The utility is not disputed. Whether this belongs in the small language is debatable (as is _everything_), but it's there and is easy to implement. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] R7RS: (current-jiffy) and (jiffies-per-second)
Alex Shinn scripsit: current-jiffy could always return fixnums. Alas, only if you are in the sweet spot of: 1) programs don't run for too long 2) fixnums are sufficiently large 3) jiffies aren't too precise On a 32-bit system with microsecond resolution (which does not necessarily mean microsecond precision), (current-jiffy) returns bignums after 17 minutes, assuming the largest fixnum is 2^30. I tried to get this fixed at the last minute by allowing jiffies to wrap around, but it didn't pass the WG. -- A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about, John Cowan like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though co...@ccil.org I stopped when I thought I heard something at http://ccil.org/~cowan the far side of the room falling over in rhythm with my feet. --Joseph Zitt ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] 4.8.0.5 syntax weirdness
This is the fix: commit f8230a466ce3a86f360178f115fb62ee124448b9 Author: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl Date: Sun Jun 30 18:50:09 2013 +0200 Fix meta-evaluation to actually take place in the meta environment and add tests Signed-off-by: Christian Kellermann ck...@pestilenz.org It seems pretty simple and applies cleanly to stability and tests out ok. Do you think I should apply it? Jim On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:37:36PM +0100, Sandra Snan wrote: I couldn't quite get this to work: It still can't find s-contains. If I move the entire (define-syntax create-tickets ...) sexp to the end of begin-for-syntax, it can't find create-tickets when called later. This is unfortunate: I just tested your code and it works with 4.8.4, but not with 4.8.0.5. Most likely this was a large change we considered too dangerous to include in the stability branch. I'm not sure which of the many changes it was that fixed this. I'm afraid your only options are to stick with 4.7.0 or use the 4.8.4 development snapshot (or git master) until 4.9.0 has been released. The good news is that both the development snapshot and master should be pretty stable since we're this close to a release. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
