Brian Harvey scripsit: > Yeah, I picked the example to try to be one step beyond > reference-manual-toy, but rather just-barely-useful, which is my > macrology comfort level, hence my (selfish) view of what WG1-Scheme > needs.
The macro is indeed trivial; it just invokes a procedure, quoting the arguments. But the procedure invokes "eval", and in such a way as to support the non-hygienic creation of names (that is, identifiers appear in the macro's output that weren't present in the input). Syntax-rules can't do that, so a proper conversion would require either some redesign or the use of a hygiene-optional system like syntax-case. So while a technical conversion to syntax-rules is straightforward, a proper conversion would require syntax-case. "If your solution uses eval, you're probably doing it wrong." Either that, or switching to a definition approach like SRFI-9, in which all the names defined by the macro are apparent in the macro call, with no magic prefixes or suffixes manufactured by the implementation. -- I now introduce Professor Smullyan, John Cowan who will prove to you that either [email protected] he doesn't exist or you don't exist, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan but you won't know which. --Melvin Fitting _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
