Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> writes: > + (let* ((old-vararg-function *vararg-function*) > + (old-vararg-gensym *vararg-gensym*)) > > Is 'let' better here?
Actually, I didn't notice that it was a let*. It's arguably a little more confusing, but not really harmful. > + ;; refers to the gensym for '...' in a function that accepts variable > arguments > + (define *vararg-gensym* #f) > + > > I know it's consistent with the old code, but maybe parameterize is > suggested? Yeah, fluid-let or parameterize is a lot better to my mind, but this way was less invasive. > Besides, as we talked in IRC, LALR/PEG is better than this manual > parser. But I think this lua implementation could work after some > patches, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to rewrite it with LALR/PEG. > What do you think? It's not necessary, and I don't have any intention of ripping out the parser and writing a new one. If someone else wrote one though, I think we should consider it. -- Ian Price -- shift-reset.com "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"
