Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix a regression in body canonicalization

Oh, internal definitions... Pushed. Thanks for investigating this issue when you noticed it. Evan signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix a regression in body canonicalization

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:55:12PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Peter Bex wrote: > > Now, the spec disallows this (I think..), > > Yes, it does: begin-with-defines is allowed only at top level. It should > be replaced by (let () (define

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix a regression in body canonicalization

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Peter Bex wrote: Now, the spec disallows this (I think..), Yes, it does: begin-with-defines is allowed only at top level. It should be replaced by (let () (define ...) . body) instead. In Algol or C terms, begin is a compound

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix a regression in body canonicalization

Hi all, While talking to Demosthenex in #chicken, I decided it would be cool to compare the performance of the "json" egg in CHICKEN 5 with that in CHICKEN 4. However, I got some errors when building the egg, which have to do with the way the "packrat" egg expands its bodies. It turns out that