[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken?
From: |
William Annis |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken? |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:34:06 -0500 (CDT) |
>From: "Dale Jordan" <address@hidden>
>
>There is no need to replace "lambda"; if you want to have your "fn":
>
>(define-syntax fn
> (syntax-rules ()
> ((_ args body ...)
> (lambda args body ...))))
Sure, I've done this already.
>As for anaphoric "if", it has an appeal; in lieu of that I use
>a variant inspired by the "=>" syntax in "cond":
>
>(define-syntax if=>
> (syntax-rules ()
> ((_ test then . else)
> (let ((it test))
> (if it (then it) . else)))))
I've also done this, but I think it's ugly. I find that about
half the time I do a test like this I need the anaphoric variety. I
want 'if' to do this all the time.
I should point out that the project Pete and I are envisioning
is *not* scheme, *is* inspired by scheme and uses scheme as the
implementation language. Chicken seems the best bootstrapping
language.
--
wm
Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken?, Perry E. Metzger, 2002/08/08
Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken?, felix, 2002/08/09