Re: indirect-export in macro Matthew Flatt (01 Dec 2005 17:16 UTC)
Re: indirect-export in macro Matthew Flatt 01 Dec 2005 17:18 UTC
At Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:13:54 -0500 (EST), Andre van Tonder wrote:
> Ah, that too, but I meant that
>
> <body> = <impexp-form>* <comdef-form>*
>
> requires the <impexp-form>s to precede the macro definitions.
But `indirect-export' is a <comdef-form>, not an <impexp-form>.
The intent is that `indirect-export' declarations are mingled with
definitions, and that a macro might expand to a definition, a macro
definition, and an indirect export all at once.
Matthew