[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] inline-syntax and require-extension-for-sy
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] inline-syntax and require-extension-for-syntax |
Date: |
Mon, 13 May 2013 10:30:36 +0200 (CEST) |
From: John Cowan <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] inline-syntax and
require-extension-for-syntax
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 19:46:52 -0400
> Felix scripsit:
>
>> 1) "require-extension-for-syntax"/"use-for-syntax", which does
>> the same as the often occurring idiom
>>
>> (begin-for-syntax (require-library FOO))
>> (import-for-syntax FOO)
>>
>> So this loads an extension and imports it, but at expansion time.
>
> I don't usually commit this sort of remark, but it does occur to me
> that if Chicken would just lift the restriction that makes `import` fail
> if a module is not loaded, rather than quietly loading it behind the
> scenes, it would not be necessary to pile feature upon feature in this
> fashion: `import-for-syntax` would do it all.
Because in chicken loading/linking and import are separated to support
different loading/linking models.
cheers,
felix