[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 264 bytes --] at least not compatible with before. Probably caused by commit 8abdbbee395f284f2262a89187d662eaf40080b1. originally correct macro ("macroA" . "(eval do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion)") How should this be achieved now? (functionp "any-string") is nil [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 405 bytes --]
Hello,
Michael Dauer <mick.dauer@gmail.com> writes:
> at least not compatible with before.
>
> Probably caused by commit 8abdbbee395f284f2262a89187d662eaf40080b1.
>
> originally correct macro ("macroA" . "(eval
> do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion)")
>
> How should this be achieved now? (functionp "any-string") is nil
I think you need to write
("macroA" . (lambda (&rest _) (do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion)))
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --] How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments? The old implementation checked the string for a "(eval" prefix. Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> schrieb am Di., 25. Mai 2021, 11:14: > Hello, > > Michael Dauer <mick.dauer@gmail.com> writes: > > > at least not compatible with before. > > > > Probably caused by commit 8abdbbee395f284f2262a89187d662eaf40080b1. > > > > originally correct macro ("macroA" . "(eval > > do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion)") > > > > How should this be achieved now? (functionp "any-string") is nil > > I think you need to write > > ("macroA" . (lambda (&rest _) > (do-something-dynamically-at-macro-expansion))) > > Regards, > -- > Nicolas Goaziou > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1244 bytes --]
Michael Dauer <mick.dauer@gmail.com> writes:
> How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments?
As before, with "(eval ..."
I might be able to give you a more specific answer when your question is
more specific, i.e., with an ECM.
Regards,
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 445 bytes --] Sorry, maybe I did not test thoroughly enough. I'll do, and come back if still necessary. thx Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> schrieb am Di., 25. Mai 2021, 17:51: > Michael Dauer <mick.dauer@gmail.com> writes: > > > How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments? > > As before, with "(eval ..." > > I might be able to give you a more specific answer when your question is > more specific, i.e., with an ECM. > > Regards, > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 938 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --] Hi, I can confirm that macros work a little bit differently (incompatible with some custom code) in 9.4.6 than 9.4.5, but still fine and better. The #+marco keyword behaviour seems unchanged. For programmatically added macros the proposed lambda form works fine. Please excuse my false report. Thanks, Michael Am Di., 25. Mai 2021 um 20:32 Uhr schrieb Michael Dauer < mick.dauer@gmail.com>: > Sorry, maybe I did not test thoroughly enough. I'll do, and come back if > still necessary. thx > > Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> schrieb am Di., 25. Mai 2021, > 17:51: > >> Michael Dauer <mick.dauer@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > How do you do this with a #+macro keyword with arguments? >> >> As before, with "(eval ..." >> >> I might be able to give you a more specific answer when your question is >> more specific, i.e., with an ECM. >> >> Regards, >> > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1740 bytes --]