[Chicken-users] Re: hygienic branch (progress report, sort of)

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> felix winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:

 > Hi!  It's silent in here.... So, let me use this moment to give
 > some progress info on the state of the "hygienic" chicken that I'm
 > currently working on.

[...]

 > This hygienic chicken represents in my humble opinion the direction
 > into which chicken should go. It breaks with backward compatibility
 > in quite a number of points and will require major effort to port all
 > eggs to (some eggs will have to be dropped). It would be helpful if
 > the chicken users and hackers take a moment to consider whether this
 > is acceptable and right, or whether we should keep the current
 > system, which is less scalable in terms of modularity, but
 > nevertheless quite stable.

        While my opinion hardly matters now (as I haven't been doing
        anything with Chicken for a few months on), I believe that the
        ``hygienic'' approach to macros, the ability to choose the set
        of bindings being imported, and the separately-compilable ``for
        macros'' libraries facilitate code clarity, and thus are very
        valuable additions to any development environment.

 > Please feel free to ask questions and please report any bugs you'll
 > find. I will update the manual and announce it once I'm ready. You
 > can look in tests/module-tests.scm and of course the sources for
 > first hints at how things work.