Re: [Scheme-reports] Internal syntax definition order problem

[Andre van Tonder <andre@x>]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, John Cowan wrote:

> Andre van Tonder scripsit:
>
>> On p 19 internal syntax definitions are required to precede internal
>> definitions.
>
> Indeed, I don't know what the justification for that sentence is; it's not
> something the WG voted on.
>
>> This make it impossible to do, e.g.,  the following:
>>
>>    (let ()
>>      (define-record-type A ....)
>>      (define-record-type B ....)
>>      ....)
>>
>> if define-record-type expands into both syntax and variable definitions as in
>> SRFI 9.
>
> To save the appearances, one could construe the rule as applying only to
> the text before macroexpansion, I suppose.

Yes, DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE was a bad example because it is in the standard, so 
consider instead

   (let ()
     (define-class A .....)
     (define-class B .....)
     ...)

where DEFINE-CLASS expands to both syntax definitions and ordinary definitions 
(much like define-record-type in SRFI 9).

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