[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Decontaminate the "scheme" module by m
|
From: |
Peter Bex |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Decontaminate the "scheme" module by moving nonstandard syntactic definitions |
|
Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:29 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:18:23PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Nice work, applied.
>
> On 2017-10-28 21:18, Peter Bex wrote:
> > PS: Does "syntax" belong in (chicken base) or in (chicken syntax)?
>
> I'd say (chicken syntax) makes more sense, unless there's a technical
> reason why that would be difficult.
I just had a quick look and it would mean we'd have to hand-craft
chicken.syntax.import.scm, as this would then be the only macro it
exports. So maybe chicken.base is fine after all?
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature