[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*? |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:36:24 +0100 |
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:39:13 +0000, Tony Garnock-Jones
<address@hidden> wrote:
> felix winkelmann wrote:
> > form. The expansions (and thus the instantiation of the builtin macros)
> > happen at compile-time, but we need to instantiate them at run-time,
>
> What do you mean by "instantiation" of a macro?
>
Telling the macro expander what procedure to call for a given macro
invocation. Registration is probably the better word.
cheers,
felix
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, felix winkelmann, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, Tony Garnock-Jones, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, felix winkelmann, 2004/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, Tony Garnock-Jones, 2004/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, felix winkelmann, 2004/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, Tony Garnock-Jones, 2004/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?,
felix winkelmann <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, Tony Garnock-Jones, 2004/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, felix winkelmann, 2004/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?, Tony Garnock-Jones, 2004/11/04