[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic chicken (getting better, but still problems
Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic chicken (getting better, but still problems)
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:00:09 +0200
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Jim Ursetto <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:39 AM, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I have tried to improve the usability of the module system and exported
>>> macro definitions now fully close over their lexical environment.
>> Does this work for imported bindings as well? For example, I imported
>> begin0 from miscmacros, which itself imports the scheme module and
>> makes use of 'apply'. However, I can't see 'apply' without manually
>> importing scheme.
> Apparently, the full closure works only for locally defined entities.
> I think this case could be called "support for indirect re-exports".
It was something completely different (special handling of primitives),
and I think I have it fixed now.
I'm waiting for the next bug. But basically, this thing is getting
better and better. I really recommend everybody to give it a try.
Programming with modules catches many unbound-variable
errors and missing library uses, allows to use shorter names and one
can finally code
extensively with macros, without having to worry about compile-time/
run-time issues (well, with a batch-compiler there will always
be situations where one has to be aware of the separation,
but this is vastly better than fiddling with `syntax' and