[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-users] Help solving this phasing problem.

From: Felix
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Help solving this phasing problem.
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:59:47 +0100 (CET)

From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Help solving this phasing problem.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:51:05 +0100

> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 04:35:23PM -0500, Patrick Li wrote:
>> I have a *very* ugly workaround right now.
>> I define the convenience function twice. Once normally. And again within a
>> begin-for-syntax form.
> You can do the same trick as before:
> (module module-a (convenience-function)
>   (import chicken scheme)
>   (define (convenience-function)
>     (display "do convenience things\n")))
> (module module-b (my-macro convenience-function)
>   (import chicken scheme module-a)
>   (import-for-syntax module-a)
>   (define-syntax my-macro
>     (lambda (expression rename comparison)
>       (convenience-function)
>        "My Macro Output")))
> This imports module-a (which can be internal and nobody has to know it's
> there) both for syntax and normally, and then re-exports the convenience
> function.
> Yes, this is ugly.

Well, is it? What could be an alternative? Perhaps something like

(define-syntax begin-<yes...what?>
  (syntax-rules ()
    ((_ forms ...)
        (begin-for-syntax forms ...)
        forms ...))))



reply via email to

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