From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: macros, procedure->macro Date: 09 Jul 2002 22:16:53 +0100 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026250619 23230 127.0.0.1 (9 Jul 2002 21:36:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:36:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17S2fK-00062Z-00 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:36:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17S2T3-00081c-00; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:24:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.21] helo=s1.uklinux.net) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17S2S4-0007ya-00; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:23:19 -0400 Original-Received: from portalet.ossau.uklinux.net (ppp-0-26.lond-b-2.access.uk.tiscali.com [80.40.6.26]) (authenticated) by s1.uklinux.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g69LMtd19575; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:22:55 +0100 Original-Received: from laruns.ossau.uklinux.net.ossau.uklinux.net (laruns.ossau.uklinux.net [192.168.1.3]) by portalet.ossau.uklinux.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id 03C311702; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:22:45 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Dirk Herrmann Original-Lines: 38 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:722 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:722 >>>>> "Dirk" == Dirk Herrmann writes: Dirk> 1) Some macro expert should check that replacing the call to procedure-> macro in boot-9.scm by a call to procedure->memoizing-macro is safe. This change is safe, since define-option-interface is only ever used at top level. Dirk> 2) Every guile user should determine, whether it would be OK Dirk> if we got rid of "macros". Dirk> 3) Decide officially, whether it is OK to remove "macros" from the head Dirk> branch. Dirk> If all results are positive, I will go ahead and remove the support Dirk> for "macros" from guile. After that, I will take a close look at "acros" Dirk> and we will play a similar game with "acros" again... Before doing this, I think we need to state clearly when macro expansion will happen in the future Guile. There was a discussion on this just a few weeks ago which, to my mind, was left unresolved. (As far as I understand, the options are just after reading and just before memoization, but just-after-reading makes recursive macro definitions difficult, and just-before-memoization leads to rather lame execution-dependent expansion. Obviously, by definition, the exact timing only matters for non-hygienic macros; but my assumption is that an awful lot of people want non-hygienic macros.) Neil PS. I think we should not mix up this discussion with one about class redefinition! _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user