Re: [Chicken-users] for those who have interest in procedure objects decoration

[Peter Bex]

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:05:44PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote:
> Peter Bex wrote:
> > This looks pretty cool!  One request though: could you please add some
> > blatant warnings that this stuff is not meant to be relied upon in user
> > code?  These are internals instead of an official API for a reason; we
> > can change them at will (this has happened in the past, and will happen
> > in the future).
> 
> Yes.  I will add it in the document overview.

Thanks!

> > So it's acceptable to use these, but only if there's no alternative, and
> > you may end up having to use cond-expand for various different versions.
> 
> Speaking of which!  "chicken-doc" does not know about COND-EXPAND! I get
> a blank page when I try it (the same with UNQUOTE and UNQUOTE-SPLICING).

Hm, that's interesting.  Unquote and unquote-splicing are not actually
bound to anything; they're only available inside quasiquote, so they can't
be imported or renamed or anything:

  (module foo () (import (only scheme quasiquote +)) `(foo ,(+ 1 2)))

So it makes sense they don't have a separate entry.  It's like having =>
as a separate entry; it doesn't exist either except in cond and case
forms.

For cond-expand, that's another story we should find out where to
document it.  It's available inside empty modules too, because it needs
to be available before even importing anything.  It's not from any
module, that's probably why we dropped it.  Perhaps under "Extensions to
the standard"?

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature