Re: [Scheme-reports] library syntax: "visiting" a library left undefined?

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@x> wrote:

Alex Shinn writes:
...

> Assuming we don't want to add a long discussion of the definition of
> visitation for something that is fairly simple in the small
> language, I would suggest:
>
>     Similarly, during the expansion of a library {\cf foo}, if any
>     syntax keywords imported from another library {\cf (bar)} are
>     needed to expand the library, then the corresponding syntax
>     definitions of {\cf (bar)} must be expanded before the expansion
>     of {\cf (foo)}.

Is there a reason for not having the first occurrence of foo in
parentheses?

I presume not - I was just copying the previous

suggestion.  "foo" by itself is not a valid library

name so we'd want to wrap it in both places.

-- 

Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports