This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: Typo: .substr in pmacros.texi is .substring in pmacros.scm
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- Cc: cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:14:02 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Typo: .substr in pmacros.texi is .substring in pmacros.scm
- References: <20020128140529.B7787@redhat.com><200203191459.PAA10399@ignucius.axis.se>
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:05:29 -0500
> > From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
>
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:57:08PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > It would IMHO be very useful if .sym-built symbols were
> > > .pmacro-expanded, as I initially thought. [...]
> >
> > I see this sort of recursive macro-expansion could be useful.
> > Does someone have an argument against it?
>
> I didn't see any argument against it, except for the comment in
> the code. This works for my simple command-line examples
> including the one in the comment but beware of the scheme/CGEN
> newbie. (Is this an ok way to compose ChangeLog entries for
> nested defines?)
>
> ! ; ??? We use to re-examine `result' to see if it was another pmacro
> ! ; invocation. This allowed doing things like ((.sym a b c) arg1 arg2)
> ! ; where `abc' is a pmacro. Scheme doesn't work this way, so it was
> ! ; removed. It can be put back should it ever be warranted.
I'm apprehensive, but if people want to try this go ahead.
If people start getting into trouble because of this I hope they share their
experience.