Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values

[Felix]

From: Alex Shinn <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:40:02 +0900

> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Felix <
> address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> From: Alex Shinn <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values
>> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:39:43 +0900
>>
>> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:49:15PM +0200, Felix wrote:
>> >> > The patch looks ok to me, even though I'm not sure the benefit of
>> having
>> >> > this feature outweights the added complexity, apart from having a
>> little
>> >> > bit of extra consistence.
>> >>
>> >> Note that this makes define-values r7rs-compliant.
>> >> The alternative is to keep the old definition and provide the slightly
>> >> more complicated one in the new "r7rs egg", but I don't know how to make
>> >> the internal definitions syntax stuff extensible.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you wanted to go this route you could just grab the portable
>> > reference implementation of define-values, no need to touch
>> > internals.
>>
>> This wouldn't work for internal definitions, I think. Is "define-values"
>> allowed for local definitions in R7RS?
>>
> 
> It's just syntax which expands into internal definitions.
> The only way it could not work is with an implementation
> which looks for internal defines statically before expanding
> the lambda body.

What about detection for redefinitions of defining forms
("define-values" in this case)? Wouldn't that need special handling?


cheers,
felix