Re: [Chicken-users] Help solving this phasing problem.

[Peter Bex]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 01:59:47PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> > This imports module-a (which can be internal and nobody has to know it's
> > there) both for syntax and normally, and then re-exports the convenience
> > function.
> > 
> > Yes, this is ugly.
> 
> Well, is it?

Not having an alternative doesn't make it less ugly ;)

> What could be an alternative? Perhaps something like
> 
> (define-syntax begin-<yes...what?>
>   (syntax-rules ()
>     ((_ forms ...)
>       (begin
>         (begin-for-syntax forms ...)
>       forms ...))))

begin-also-for-syntax? begin-for-both-environments? :)

Maybe we should have a different define form that allows
you to add things to both the expansion and macro definition
environments.  Or maybe simpler: add a special form that "lifts"
a definition to the macro definition environment.

So you'd do something like

(define foo 1)
(add-to-syntax-env foo)

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth