On Feb 4, 8:11 pm, Bryce wrote:
> I take your point; I've given up trying to actually define a function
> with the expression for the moment (I'd imagine it's still possible,
> just much trickier than I thought). My intention was to fake operator
> overloading. For my purposes it should be enoug
> 3. Making your example work would necessitate discovering which of the
> symbols in the (+ a b) form are to be treated as formal arguments. In
> this case, the answer would be a (to be bound to 3) and b (to be bound
> to 4). In general, that's very nearly impossible, as any symbol not in
> your
On 4 February 2010 17:24, Bryce wrote:
> I'm sure I'm messing up something fairly basic; any idea what I'm
> doing wrong?
1. At the time the code inside your macro definition executes, the "a"
you pass in as the first argument in your example is just a symbol.
Ditto for "b". It makes no sense to
