Hi,
I can confirm that macros work a little bit differently (incompatible with
some custom code) in 9.4.6 than 9.4.5, but still fine and better.
The #+marco keyword behaviour seems unchanged. For programmatically added
macros the proposed lambda form works fine.
Please excuse my false report.
T
Sorry, maybe I did not test thoroughly enough. I'll do, and come back if
still necessary. thx
Nicolas Goaziou schrieb am Di., 25. Mai 2021,
17:51:
> Michael Dauer writes:
>
> > How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments?
>
> As before, with "(eval ..."
>
> I might be able to give
Michael Dauer writes:
> How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments?
As before, with "(eval ..."
I might be able to give you a more specific answer when your question is
more specific, i.e., with an ECM.
Regards,
How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments?
The old implementation checked the string for a "(eval" prefix.
Nicolas Goaziou schrieb am Di., 25. Mai 2021,
11:14:
> Hello,
>
> Michael Dauer writes:
>
> > at least not compatible with before.
> >
> > Probably caused by commit 8abdbbe
Hello,
Michael Dauer writes:
> at least not compatible with before.
>
> Probably caused by commit 8abdbbee395f284f2262a89187d662eaf40080b1.
>
> originally correct macro ("macroA" . "(eval
> do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion)")
>
> How should this be achieved now? (functionp "any-string
at least not compatible with before.
Probably caused by commit 8abdbbee395f284f2262a89187d662eaf40080b1.
originally correct macro ("macroA" . "(eval
do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion)")
How should this be achieved now? (functionp "any-string") is nil
