On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Peter Bex wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:12:01PM +0200, Andy Wingo wrote: >>> If I change (define val init) to (define-for-syntax val init), the >>> generated "var" macro will pick up on it. >> >> I am suprised that you needed to do define-for-syntax here, as the >> *value* of the `val' bindings is not needed at expansion time; the >> expander must only note that there is such a binding. > > Yeah, this is probably another bug :) > We've been cleaning up a lot of these kinds of bugs lately, but we're > not completely there yet :)
If it helps, if you only use SYNTAX-RULES, DEFINE-FOR-SYNTAX is never necessary. In fact, there is no way you can ever access meta-level DEFINE-FOR-SYNTAX bindings using only SYNTAX-RULES macros. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
