Re: [Chicken-hackers] require, require-extension-for-syntax, and the initial macro environment

> But honestly, I think it's better to just drop require-extension-for-syntax > and perhaps even require-extension. The former, yes. The latter is a SRFI, even though few support it. > > One more question: Where should we document "the initial (nameless) macro > environment"? For example,

Re: [Chicken-hackers] require, require-extension-for-syntax, and the initial macro environment

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Peter Bex wrote: > I'm not sure why we still need these (probably because require-extension > is a SRFI (55)?). As a SRFI fan, I still say flush it. SRFI 55 isn't very portable: besides Chicken, where it began, it spread only to Gauche,