Good day, good people!
There might be a bug in recursive macro expansion, at least when the
definition of parameters, using (define …) and similar is involved. Here
is a slightly simplified example.
The purpose of this macro is to define a couple of short-hands for a
generic encoder/decod
On 03-10-2022 13:32, Frank Terbeck wrote:
When looking at this, I also saw the following, which might be related
if ‘syntax-rules’ is implemented using ‘syntax-case’
It is, IIRC.
(I didn't check if
this is the case):
(define-syntax-rule (foobar n) (define quux n))
,exp (foobar
Hey Maxime!
Maxime Devos wrote:
> On 03-10-2022 13:32, Frank Terbeck wrote:
>> When looking at this, I also saw the following, which might be related
>> if ‘syntax-rules’ is implemented using ‘syntax-case’
>
> It is, IIRC.
>
>> (I didn't check if
>> this is the case):
>> (define-syntax-rul
Le 03/10/2022 à 15:41, Frank Terbeck a écrit :
I get the point, but I think it's sort of surprising, when everything in
the macro-language is otherwise quite literal, to my understanding. It
may be warranted to point this out in the documentation that this is a
side effect of hygienic macr
Hey!
Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 03/10/2022 à 15:41, Frank Terbeck a écrit :
>> I get the point, but I think it's sort of surprising, when everything in
>> the macro-language is otherwise quite literal, to my understanding. It
>> may be warranted to point this out in the documentation that thi
