Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that define-record-printer is not a definition

[Evan Hanson]

On 2019-08-13 22:16, Evan Hanson wrote:
> On 2019-07-12 10:45, Peter Bex wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:29:58PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > > As a sidenote, this issue also applies to `define-reader-ctor', and
> > > perhaps others; I didn't review the lot.
> > 
> > hm, I didn't think of that one.  That's a procedure, which is even
> > weirder.
> 
> Yeah, I'm just going to pretend we didn't notice that one for now...

I had a look at the behaviour of the other definition forms (read:
things that start with "define-") when dropped into the example program
on ticket #1294.

These work fine:

  define-record
  define-record-type
  define-values

These don't work, but they also don't really make sense outside the
toplevel (and most of them are documented as such) so I think they're
fine to ignore:

  define-constant
  define-external
  define-foreign-type
  define-foreign-variable
  define-inline
  define-interface
  define-location

These don't work, but seem like they probably ought to:

  define-compiler-syntax
  define-for-syntax
  define-reader-ctor
  define-record-printer
  define-specialization
  define-syntax
  define-type

I was surprised to find `define-syntax' in this list.

Evan