On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > Mikael Djurfeldt <mik...@djurfeldt.com> skribis: > >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>> +(cond-expand (guile-2 >>>> + (define-syntax define-integrable >>>> + (syntax-rules () >>>> + ((_ form body ...) (define form body ...))))) >>> >>> You can actually use ‘define-inlinable’ here (info "(guile) Inlinable >>> Procedures"). >> >> Sorry, I'm lost. >> >> Doesn't define-inlinable define a procedure? > > It does, but it’s equivalent to what some implementations call > ‘define-integrable’.
Ludovic---sorry, I'm being dense. You see, I just by reflex interpreted "integrable" as a mathematical term. But I should have reacted against this being defined as a compatibility measure. What you are saying is that I should use define-inlinable instead of define in the definition of define-integrable, right? I didn't know about the common existence of "define-integrable" in other implementations! Thanks you!
