Matt Wette writes: > Here are a couple desires: > > 1) more cases for cond-expand, in case 3.2 has items 3.0 does not (e.g., > srfi-199) > > 2) better debugging. > Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I struggle in this area: I mostly resort > to printing. > For example, add scheme level hook, or command arg, to turn off > optimization.
You aren't alone... read this thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2017-05/msg00068.html And Andy's suggestion of what we need to do to make it better: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2017-05/msg00070.html
