> On Nov 24, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Christopher Allan Webber
> wrote:
>
> 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
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 ho
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 opti
