Re: perplexing syntax-rules bug

2014-12-20 Thread Wette, Matthew R (3441)
On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Matt wrote: (list (cons 'name ) (cons 'title #f)) OK. Thanks. I'm guessing list-copy would be another option: (sval (list-copy '((a . 1) (b . 2))) No. need to use alist-copy from (srfi srfi-1) (or (map list-copy '((a . 1) (b . 2)))

Re: perplexing syntax-rules bug

2014-12-20 Thread Panicz Maciej Godek
2014-12-20 8:39 GMT+01:00 Marco Maggi : > > > The problem is that ASSQ-SET! mutates the result of the literal > expression: > >'((name . ) (title . #f)) > > this problem is not related to SYNTAX-RULES. The form: > >'((name . ) (title . #f)) > > is a "literal expression", it is a

Re: perplexing syntax-rules bug

2014-12-20 Thread Wette, Matthew R (3441)
On Dec 19, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Marco Maggi wrote: > Wette, Matthew R (3441) wrote: > >> Sorry to bug, I can't figure out why "sval" in the second evaluation >> of "sect" is bound to the "sval" from the first evaluation of "sect". >> Anyone understand? This is guile 2.0.11. -- Matt > > (define-s

Re: perplexing syntax-rules bug

2014-12-20 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() Marco Maggi () Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:39:00 +0100 The problem is that ASSQ-SET! mutates the result of the literal expression: '((name . ) (title . #f)) this problem is not related to SYNTAX-RULES. Right. See also this spew: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/201

Re: perplexing syntax-rules bug

2014-12-20 Thread Marco Maggi
Wette, Matthew R (3441) wrote: > Sorry to bug, I can't figure out why "sval" in the second evaluation > of "sect" is bound to the "sval" from the first evaluation of "sect". > Anyone understand? This is guile 2.0.11. -- Matt (define-syntax sect (syntax-rules () ((sect ...) (let ((sva