[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-users] Another define bug and a question

From: Zbigniew
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Another define bug and a question
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:35:00 -0500


Although it's tangential to your question, if you wind up with a macro
shadowing a procedure, you can remove the binding with
(undefine-macro! foo).  I have used this a few times during long
interpreter sessions.

On 6/6/05, Reed Sheridan <address@hidden> wrote:
> A self-explanatory snippet:
> #> (define-macro (foo) "foo")
> #> (foo)
> "foo"
> #> (define foo 1)
> #> foo
> Error: invalid syntax in macro form: foo
> #> (foo)
> "foo"
> #>

reply via email to

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