[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-users] destructuring-bind?
|
From: |
Elliot Cuzzillo |
|
Subject: |
[Chicken-users] destructuring-bind? |
|
Date: |
Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:10:55 -0500 |
Coming from CL, I'm used to having macro definitions use
destructuring-bind in their argument lists, so that if we have
(defmacro blah ((x y) z) ...) then if you call (blah (fee fi) fo) then
x => fee, y => fi, and z=> fo.
Does this exist in Chicken's macros, or elsewhere in Chicken?
- [Chicken-users] destructuring-bind?,
Elliot Cuzzillo <=
- Prev by Date:
[Chicken-users] object-evict, string ports, safe-foreign-wrapper, foreign-primitive, Cheney on the Victoria Line, etc (was: What happens to a (non-simple) Scheme object sent to a foreign function?)
- Next by Date:
Re: [Chicken-users] destructuring-bind?
- Previous by thread:
[Chicken-users] object-evict, string ports, safe-foreign-wrapper, foreign-primitive, Cheney on the Victoria Line, etc (was: What happens to a (non-simple) Scheme object sent to a foreign function?)
- Next by thread:
Re: [Chicken-users] destructuring-bind?
- Index(es):