On Sep 12, 2009, at 2:56 AM, Brian Mastenbrook wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:32:44 -0500, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Your technique for searching the input syntax for some identifier >> is applicable even using syntax-rules only, so, I don't see how >> outlawing syntax->datum is more necessary to ensure that we can't >> "bind identifiers unhygienically" than outlawing syntax-rules. >> >> Google unhygienic syntax-rules for details. > > I retracted the use of the word "unhygienic" to apply to what that > macro does:
So, what are you trying to demonstrate then? > but I'm convinced that the macro I wrote there is not expressible > using pure `syntax-rules'. Fine. There are many kinds of computations that syntax-rules cannot do directly (like arithmetic which require special encoding of numbers for example). > ... > The comparison of identifiers using `eq?' on the symbols is something > that it's not possible to do without some variation of Oleg's > technique > of redefining binding constructs. I'll buy that without proof. But, what are you trying to prove for which this is evidence? Aziz,,, _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
