Re: [Chicken-users] need idea for read-syntax

[Category 5]

Felix Winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:

>> Okay.  I think the thing that puzzles me a bit is that I see variable
>> references as different beasts than (sequences of) instructions.  The
>> first means 'this thing' and the second means 'do this'.  It seems a
>> little confusing to use the same form for both purposes.
>
> Admittedly, that's true. How about two different forms:
>
> (foreign-code " ... ")
> (foreign-expression " ... " TYPE)
>
> ?

I think this is much clearer, yes.  It also clears up the read syntax
issue; foreign-code is similar to foreign-declare and could benefit from
a special read syntax for the same reason, but you don't need read
syntax for foreign-expression since you can just use let (if I correctly
understand foreign-expression to return a first-class thing).

--