[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken?

From: William Annis
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken?
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:34:06 -0500 (CDT)

 >From: "Dale Jordan" <address@hidden>
 >There is no need to replace "lambda"; if you want to have your "fn":
 >(define-syntax fn
 >   (syntax-rules ()
 >      ((_ args body ...)
 >       (lambda args body ...))))

        Sure, I've done this already.

 >As for anaphoric "if", it has an appeal; in lieu of that I use
 >a variant inspired by the "=>" syntax in "cond":
 >(define-syntax if=>
 >   (syntax-rules ()
 >      ((_ test then . else)
 >       (let ((it test))
 >         (if it (then it) . else)))))

        I've also done this, but I think it's ugly.  I find that about
half the time I do a test like this I need the anaphoric variety.  I
want 'if' to do this all the time.

        I should point out that the project Pete and I are envisioning
is *not* scheme, *is* inspired by scheme and uses scheme as the
implementation language.  Chicken seems the best bootstrapping


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]