Hi Damien!
I think there might be too few expressions matched in the first case: (_ var
expr). Wouldn't it have to be:
~~~~
(_ var expr1 expr2)
;; or
(_ var exprs ...)
~~~~
for
~~~~
(<+ var expr1 expr2)
~~~~
to work, simply because of the number of expressions there?
But then you might need to use ellipsis in the resulting syntax somewhere,
otherwise you get:
~~~~
syntax: missing ellipsis in form (syntax (define var expr))
~~~~
I don't know where that would go, but I also do not understand yet the goal. I
think it is best to always describe, what you want to achieve, when you write a
macro.
Regards,
Zelphir
On 9/4/21 4:41 PM, Damien Mattei wrote:
> hi,
>
> i have this macro:
>
> (define-syntax <+
> (syntax-rules ()
> ((_ var expr) (define var expr))
> ((_ err ...) (syntax-error "Bad <- form")) ;; does not work in infix !
> ))
>
> why my syntax-error pattern never reach in infix:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> {x <+ 7 8}
> While compiling expression:
> Syntax error:
> unknown file:3:3: source expression failed to match any pattern in form <+
>
> but ok in prefix:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (<+ x 9 10)
> While compiling expression:
> Syntax error:
> unknown location: <+: Bad <- form in form (<+ x 9 10)
>
> why?
> Regards,
> Damien
--
repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl
