Re: [Chicken-users] macro systems and chicken (long)

[felix winkelmann]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Graham Fawcett <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>  >  The downside is that define-record and in particular define-macro have to 
> go.
>
>  define-record has to go? That's scary. I can live without define-macro
>  (now that Alex has shown me how to do low-level macrology without it)
>  but define-record is fundamental, no?
>

"define-record-type" (SRFI-9) should be sufficient. The problem is that
it is not that easy to construct identifiers in hygienic macros (or it probably
is, I don't know, I haven't thought about it very much, yet. There are many
loose ends in the moment since so much changes).


cheers,
felix