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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

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.

-- 
John Cowan                                cowan@x
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, LOTR:FOTR

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