[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: [SeaFunc] why Chicken?
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: [SeaFunc] why Chicken? |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:17:08 +0100 |
On 1/31/07, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
Michael Small wrote:
>
>
> The list of eggs out there for Chicken really attracted me to it. But
> what turned me away (temporarily? ) and has me thinking Scheme48
> (except I don't see any way to make GUIs in it) was that syntax
> extension only seemed to be supported in the compiler not in the
> interpreter, at least in the build I looked at: Version 2 build 41
> from the OpenBSD packages.
>
I would get on the Chicken mailing list and ask about current
capabilities. I don't know the answer to this myself. I do know that
development in the Darcs repository is very active. We are currrently
on Chicken 2.517. 2.41 seems like awhile ago, maybe 6 months old.
Syntax extensions should work both in the compiler and interpreter.
The setup can sometimes be a bit complex (syntax at compile-time and/or
run-time, etc.), but basically it works. With more information about the
kind of problem I can say more.
cheers,
felix
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: [SeaFunc] why Chicken?,
felix winkelmann <=