Re: [Chicken-users] is it possible to define expand-time values?

[Peter Bex]

On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 09:06:08PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote:
> That  example just  shows the  mechanism, and  it is  not really  a good
> example (I wrote it).  What I  am thinking of, as reference scenario, is
> an infix-to-prefix macro  with infrastructure that allows  to define new
> binary operators, in which the operator name is not necessarily equal to
> the name of the function that implements the operation itself.
> 
>   So it should go like this:
> 
>    (define (spiffy-operation X Y)
>      (do-something-spiffy-with X Y))
> 
>    (define-infix-binary-operator spiffy
>      (right-binding-power 55)
>      ...
>      (procedure spiffy-operation))
> 
>    (infix 2 * 3 + 88 spiffy 99)

I don't quite understand this example.  Nevertheless, I still get
the feeling that this is a concept that's unnecessary.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature