Hi Joseph, > Hello, > I have recently seen an interesting expansion of a syntax-rules macro whose > definition contained a reference to a expansition-style macro, specifically > an instantiate macro introduced by the object system. Here is a simplified > example: > (define-class foo > a) > > (define-syntax darn > (syntax-rules () > ((_) > (let ((a 1)) > (instantiate::foo (a a)))))) > > (darn) > Unexpectedly, at least to me, this expands to: > (let ((a1019 1)) (instantiate::foo (a1019 a1019))) > This results in an error because foo does not have a field named a1019. > Contrary to my expectations, is the expected behavior? No, it's obviously not. I will see if I can fix that problem. Thanks for the report.
-- Manuel
