Another clue, Put this into a file and load it
(define (f x) (c)) (define-syntax c (lambda (x) (pk 'c) #t)) ,x f shows 0 (assert-nargs-ee/locals 1) ;; 1 arg, 0 locals 2 (toplevel-ref 1) ;; #<syntax-transformer c> 4 (tail-call 0) at examples/mutual.scm:9:14 and (f 1) yields scheme@(guile-user) [4]> (f 1) ERROR: In procedure #<syntax-transformer c>: ERROR: Wrong type to apply: #<syntax-transformer c> This is confusing!! /Stefan On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Mon 14 May 2012 21:13, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > writes: > > > (begin > > (define parser-a code-a ...) > > (define-syntax a spec-a)) > > > > (begin > > (define parser-b code-b ...) > > (define-syntax b spec-b)) > > > > In racket they manage to evaluate the define-syntax forms before the > define-forms cause in the expansion > > of code-a amd code-b they need the spec's spec-a and spec-b. > > > > Do you have any ideas how solve this. I do have a fix for problem but it > is not easy to use. > > Have you tried master? If I understand you correctly I think it should > work there. > > Andy > -- > http://wingolog.org/ >
