On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:06:59PM -0500, Zbigniew wrote:
OK, try this.
bar.scm:
(define-extension bar)
(define (fac n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n (fac (- n 1))) ) )
foo.scm:
#+compiling (declare (uses bar))
(use bar)
(write (fac 10)) (newline)
With this
On 10/20/07, Rick Taube [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ahh! thanks very much! it would be nice to add a line about this
differnece in the readme's installation section.
Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
cheers,
felix
___
Chicken-users mailing list
On 10/21/07, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is the difference between compiled and interpreted mode there?
The meaning of these things isn't fundamentally different between the two
modes, is it? Can't (declare) statements be parsed by the interpreter as
well?
I understand that
Peter Bex scripsit:
Why is the difference between compiled and interpreted mode there?
The meaning of these things isn't fundamentally different between the two
modes, is it? Can't (declare) statements be parsed by the interpreter as
well?
They are trivially parsed and ignored with a
On 10/21/07, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
Why is the difference between compiled and interpreted mode there?
The meaning of these things isn't fundamentally different between the two
modes, is it? Can't (declare) statements be parsed by the interpreter as
Ozzi scripsit:
(require-extension ...)
(use ...)
These are exact synonyms: require-extension is a superset of SRFI-55's,
whereas use is shorter and Chicken-specific.
The argument is a library unit or an egg name. Both the interpreter
and the compiler accept these forms, and arrange to do
On 10/22/07, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(require ...)
Procedure equivalent of require-extension, so the argument is evaluated.
(require-for-syntax ...)
Equivalent to require, but loads the file at compile-time (identical
to require in the interpreter).
(I'd like to add here that
