foo
(define-syntax-rule (create-useless-macro ?name)
(define-syntax-rule (?name ??param)
(display '(?name ??param
(create-useless-macro foo)
=>
(define-syntax-rule (foo ??param)
(display '(foo ??param)))
(foo bar)
=>
(display '(foo bar))
This convention is us
ok like
(+ 1 2)
No, this is impossible without redefining +. A macro produces 1 sexp,
not more.
It seems like this would make multiple values much much more useful.
szgyg
ps: GNU Free Software Directory list guile-1.6.7 as recent
___
Guile-user ma
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
szgyg wrote:
No, this is impossible without redefining +. A macro produces 1 sexp,
not more.
This is exactly what I am getting at.
Oh, yes, I see.
This isn't a new idea, but the original semantic.
| (this is not a serious proposal for a language extension,
Neil Jerram wrote:
szgyg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This isn't a new idea, but the original semantic.
Interesting! So how come RnRS turned out not to include this?
I don't know exactly, but see
Steele & Gabriel: The Evolution of Lisp, 1993
Josef Wolf wrote:
I am trying to understand the defstruct macro from the "teach yourself
scheme in fixnum days" tutorial, which can be found in chapter 9 at
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme-Z-H-11.html#node_chap_9
My first question is of a more generic type. For a better u
