Mikael Djurfeldt <mik...@djurfeldt.com> skribis: > 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?
Exactly. Sorry for not making myself clear! Ludo’.
