Re: [Chicken-users] macro systems and chicken (long)

[Alex Shinn]

>>>>> "Alaric" == Alaric Snell-Pym <address@hidden> writes:

    Alaric> On 17 Apr 2008, at 12:58 pm, Alex Shinn wrote:
    >> 
    >> could fail if the (var val) ... list were passed as a
    >> syntax object.  Though probably this would never
    >> happen in practice.

    Alaric> When *will* it happen in practice?

You could force it whenever you want with
make-syntactic-closure.  I think in this case it's only
likely to come about as part of a higher order macro that
closes individual parts all the time for safety.

Actually, I think if you always use the ER- transformer then
you never get anything other than symbols wrapped as
syntactic closures, so there would be no problems with
destructuring.

    Alaric> Can we not write a define-record as a macro on
    Alaric> top of define-record- type? I've not used
    Alaric> define-record-type much (it seems a bit
    Alaric> overcomplex) so I'm not sure if there's some
    Alaric> fundamental incompatability...

Sure, as I said, I was just doing that for portability.

-- 
Alex