Re: [Chicken-users] destructuring-bind?

[Peter Bex]

On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 04:10:55PM -0500, Elliot Cuzzillo wrote:
> Coming from CL, I'm used to having macro definitions use
> destructuring-bind in their argument lists, so that if we have
> (defmacro blah ((x y) z) ...) then if you call (blah (fee fi) fo) then
> x => fee, y => fi, and z=> fo.
> Does this exist in Chicken's macros, or elsewhere in Chicken?

You can do this with the 'match' macro:
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8080//Pattern%20matching

#;1> (define-macro (foo . bar) (match bar (() 0) ((x) x) (else "sorry")))
#;2> (foo)
0
#;3> (foo "x")
"x"
#;4> (foo "x" "y")
"sorry"
#;5> 

HTH,
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

pgpB0ZSCymar4.pgp
Description: PGP signature