John Cowan wrote: > Brian Harvey scripsit: > >> I know everyone disagrees with me about that, but isn't it how we Lispians >> all >> feel about requiring variable type declarations? Macro hygiene -- just >> listen >> to the sound of the name, for heaven's sake! -- was and is supported by >> arguments not so very different from the arguments for type declarations. > > [snip] > >> P.S. Yes, I do understand that hygienic macros can be viewed as a virtually >> inevitable extension of Scheme's jewel-like lexical scope. That's the only >> benefit of being old; I can now see more than one point of view about things. > > Indeed. How much better it would have been if hygienic macros had been > called "lexically scoped macro parameters" to begin with. How simple > the argument: "Our procedure parameters are lexically scoped, but our > macro parameters are still dynamically scoped, even though they don't > superficially appear to be. Let's fix that." Everyone would have nodded > their heads and gone back to working on their all-day suckers.
I keep hearing this stuff about Scheme being a lexically scoped language. I don't buy it (or at least, I think it's more subtle than one might believe). What is the definition of lexical scope being employed here? David _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
