> > the reason i didn't do the (field1 maybe-string "") syntax *i.e. no
> > parens around maybe-string), is that i couldn't convince the hygienic
> > macro system about it.
>
> Do you have some non-working code? Maybe I can make it work ...

thank you for your kind offer Maxime! i have attached a half-baked patch.

it should also resolve your other nice catch of my mistaken use of UNSPECIFIED? on syntax objects.

in this change i try to introduce a codepath for a canonical form for DEFINE-CONFIGURATION fields, but it won't work this way, because this way the SYNTAX-CASE forms will only match when *every* field is of the specified shape.

the solution is probably in the direction of introducing a new DEFINE-CONFIGURATION-HELPER/FIELD somehow, but hygienic macros are a rather new territory for me...

as for the (threads (number 5)) change: i'd rather not do it in this commit to try to keep it as much idempotent wrt behavior as possible.

--
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
	— Albert Einstein (1879–1955)