The question is: why would you do that?
Why not? :)
I'm trying to create a functional module system (similar to nixpkgs/nixos),
where modules are functions, imports are arguments, and exports are just the
return of the function.
Seems like scheme macros can't really work like that, although th
Arne wrote:
Additionally we’d have to ask whether these should actually be in
(guile ...). (ice-9 match) is actually from chibi-scheme, just with
three shims added so the upstream code runs unmodified. Calling that
(guile ...) would falsely imply that it is implementation specific.
The deeper I
Arne wrote:
Indeed, Scheme doesn't have a clear separation between full-featured
RnRS implementations and subset implementation. Several people have
noted that this is confusing.
Maybe the r7rs-benchmark preludes and postludes could be a start for
documentation of that?
https://github.com/ecr
Arne wrote:
Would it be possible to start into that by creating prefixes for the
different package repositories?
(akkuscm ...) and (snow-fort ...)
I advise against doing that, as the same package can be published to
multiple repositories.
Would that be a problem? All it needs is a referenc
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: spacecadet
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2024 19:11
To: Taylan Kammer; guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Lexically bound macro, with lexically bound transformer
> I think the guile-user list might be more appropriate.
Noted
>(let-syntax ((outer (lambda (x) #'(+
