On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Patrick Li patrickli.2...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Michele,
I realized after posting my
On May 27 2013, Michele La Monaca wrote:
R5RS doesn't specify this kind of syntax (nor Chicken supports it):
(let* loop ((a init) (b a))
body)
To me it seems a missing piece of syntax. Am I wrong?
I've missed it occasionally as well, but I'm not sure it's *that* useful.
Of course
If I understand the OP correctly, he wants let* to imitate this macro.
(define-syntax named-let*
(syntax-rules ()
((named-let* name ((var val) ...)
body ...)
(let* ((var val) ...)
(let name ((var var) ...)
body ...)
-Patrick
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:47
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
On May 27 2013, Michele La Monaca wrote:
R5RS doesn't specify this kind of syntax (nor Chicken supports it):
(let* loop ((a init) (b a))
body)
To me it seems a missing piece of syntax. Am I
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Patrick Li patrickli.2...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand the OP correctly, he wants let* to imitate this macro.
(define-syntax named-let*
(syntax-rules ()
((named-let* name ((var val) ...)
body ...)
(let* ((var val) ...)
(let
Hi Michele,
I realized after posting my version of named-let*, that you actually
*cannot* use it to accomplish all of what you want. For that you do need
loop to be a syntactic extension, as mentioned by Jorg.
For instance, my named-let* macro would not simplify the example you posted
earlier:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Patrick Li patrickli.2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michele,
I realized after posting my version of named-let*, that you actually
*cannot* use it to accomplish all of what you want. For that you do need
loop to be a syntactic extension, as mentioned by Jorg.
For
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Patrick Li patrickli.2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michele,
I realized after posting my version of named-let*, that you actually
*cannot* use it to accomplish all of what you
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Michele La Monaca mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net
wrote:
So writing down the options, we have:
(let* loop ((i (random N)) (ch (string-ref buf i)))
(do-something)
(if
R5RS doesn't specify this kind of syntax (nor Chicken supports it):
(let* loop ((a init) (b a))
body)
To me it seems a missing piece of syntax. Am I wrong?
I've missed it occasionally as well, but I'm not sure it's *that* useful.
Of course that's something we all can live without, but
Hi all,
R5RS doesn't specify this kind of syntax (nor Chicken supports it):
(let* loop ((a init) (b a))
body)
To me it seems a missing piece of syntax. Am I wrong?
Ciao,
Michele
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:37:12PM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote:
Hi all,
R5RS doesn't specify this kind of syntax (nor Chicken supports it):
(let* loop ((a init) (b a))
body)
To me it seems a missing piece of syntax. Am I wrong?
I've missed it occasionally as well, but I'm not
12 matches
Mail list logo
