Re: [Chicken-users] ditching syntax-case modules for the utf8 egg

[Alex Shinn]

>>>>> "Felix" == felix winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:

    Felix> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Alex Shinn <address@hidden> wrote:
    >> 
    >> I actually thought the change you introduced didn't
    >> really inline most of the operators but referenced a
    >> static table, and that this would occur regardless of
    >> whether the procedure was in operator position or
    >> not.

    Felix> No, integration only happens in operator
    Felix> position.

Well, that's easy enough to change.

    Felix> But won't syntax-case's module system rewrite the
    Felix> variable reference, regardless whether the
    Felix> identifier is in operator position or not?

Yes.  I see what you're saying though - importing into the
top-level doesn't actually mutate the top-level bindings of
the same name, so it won't be the same.  Except for
subsequently LOADed or EVALed code.  Yet another compiled
code vs. interpreted code difference.  Yet another reason
never to touch syntax-case modules :(

Anyway, I never used utf8 myself before (I always just used
utf8-lolevel directly, but that's really not recommended).
I will likely not use it in the future either.  The semantic
differences can be worked around between byte-strings and
utf8-strings, but because there is an abundance of code in
many libraries that need to refer to string indices it's
pretty much impossible to integrate any kind of code that
changes the meaning of those indices.

-- 
Alex