Andre van Tonder scripsit:
> I dislike let(rec)-syntax, so higher phases are rare in my code. In my
> experience, let(rec)-syntax and internal define-syntax are the root of
> all evil as far as the complications of phases are concerned. If we
> restricted macro definitions to the top-level or library toplevel,
> I have an inkling that the whole question of phases would have been
> easier to resolve. Not a certainty, but a stroing suspicion.
A resounding "Amen!" to that. But of course if people didn't insist on
their non-syntax-rules macros, there would be no phasing problem at all.
I keep being told that let-syntax allows you to write:
(let ((x ...) ...)
(let-syntax y (....x.....))
allowing the body of the macro y to access the bound variable x, but I
have yet (after repeated challenges) to be shown a non-toy example of
this construction.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [email protected]
[P]olice in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting
on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV
cop shows. When it's explained to them that they are in a different country,
where those rights do not exist, they become outraged. --Neal Stephenson
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
