Recursive expansion of pmacros (was: Re: Typo: .substr in pmacros.texi is .substring in pmacros.scm)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>]

> From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:14:02 -0800 (PST)

> 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.

Hey, time has run out for protests! :-)

> If people start getting into trouble because of this I hope they share their
> experience.

And their joy!  But that would probably be a first. ;-)

> From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:14:59 -0800 (PST)

> btw, do you have an actual use for it?
> Or is this just something that you think might be
> useful in the future?

As I wrote, I had already startet to depend upon it in a port in
progress.  I greatly simplified things (or made it hard in the
absence, I should say).

brgds, H-P