Re: [Chicken-users] riaxpander bug(?) with #!optional

[Peter Wright]

On 17/06 23:13:13, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Peter Wright <address@hidden> wrote:
> > After recently rereading Alex's informative post on Chicken macro
> > systems a month or so ago, I was trying out riaxpander as a
> > replacement for syntactic-closures, but have just run into some
> > rather odd behaviour.
> 
> I'm not sure (and can't try it out right now).

No problem - I understand you're probably having far too much fun with
hygienic-chicken at the moment. :)

> It is possible that riaxpander simply does not support this.

Hm. That would be depressing. Although - no, this seems to work:

; ------- wtf2.scm -------
(use riaxpander)
  
(define (wtf x #!optional (y "Bob") (z "Dave"))
    (printf "Hello ~A! How is ~A?~%" x y)) 
        
(wtf "Jim")
; ------- wtf2.scm -------

...ie. doing nothing more than adding an *extra* (ie. not even used)
optional argument is enough to make it compile/run correctly.

Weird.


Okay, I may have to resort to drastic measures - eg. actually looking
at the (riaxpander) code in question. No pain, no gain. :)


It _looks_ like this is the failing line from riaxpander:

http://trac.callcc.org/browser/release/3/riaxpander/riaxpander-chicken-macros.scm?rev=10322#L248

...but I'm not sure what it's supposed to be doing. And the
indentation looks wrong (which tends to be a good hint of badness in
my *own* code at least :)).

Ah well, I'll investigate it a bit further and perhaps compare with
the syntactic-closures implementation.

> cheers,
> felix

Pete.
-- 
A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program
in than some that do.  -- Dennis M. Ritchie