> Yes, I know. It disproved the suggestion that it was expanding macros > there *before* checking for special symbols. That was precisely my > point with that demonstration.
I must have misread your comments. > When the macro expands into a special form, or a form involving a > special subform, this seems to be true. On the other hand it cannot > convert an s-expression *into* a special form unless s-expression was > the macro invocation itself. (qqq something) can expand to (if > something), but ((qqq) something) cannot expand to (if something) and > have this still be treated as the if special form, for the reasons > already noted. Agreed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
