On Tue 17 Jan 2012 00:11, Tobias Brandt writes:
> I want to define a macro `with-vectors` that transforms this:
>
> (with-vectors (v)
> (v 0)
> (set! (v 0) 'foo)
> (some-procedure v))
We currently don't have good support in the expander for variable
transformers that take arguments.
Tobias Brandt writes:
> Hi,
>
> is it possible to define a macro that does one thing when
> it's in operator position and another when it's not?
It depends what you mean by that. If you mean operator-position/set!
position/ variable position, then that is id-syntax. If you mean
something like
(d
Hi Paul,
Paul Smith skribis:
> On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 23:02 +0100, Ludovic Courts wrote:
>> And thanks for the great news! :-)
>
> I promoted the feature to GNU make CVS (I know, still CVS!!) on
> Savannah. I hope to generate a test dist file sometime this week. I'll
> email when it's availabl
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 23:42 +0100, Ludovic Courts wrote:
> It works as intended ;-) but hits a segfault fixed with this patch:
Doh! I added a feature to make that allows you to define functions
separately (previously all functions had to be predefined in the static
table in functions.c) and moved
> 0. I'm sure there is another way, but my mind blanks at the moment
After you got me started, I was able to simplify and generalize it a bit.
(-> is a GOOPS generic accessor I defined elsewhere. It works with
vectors, arrays, strings, etc ...)
(define-syntax with-accessors (lambda (stx) (synt
Hi Julian, thanks for working on this!
Julian Graham writes:
> +SCM
> +scm_c_value_ref (SCM obj, size_t idx)
> +{
> + SCM values = scm_struct_ref (obj, SCM_INUM0);
> + return scm_list_ref (values, SCM_I_MAKINUM (idx));
> +}
> +
Should this verify that `obj' is a values object?
Should it verif
