On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Noah Lavine <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (If so, it sounds like syntax parameters may be the solution. But at >>> this point I'm just trying to make sure I understand the problem.) >>> >> >> Yes, I believe syntax-parameters could be used. It would be clumsy, >> since the >> macros involved would have to syntax-parameterize the entire SRE language >> on >> each expansion. But if we're entertaining non-standard extensions then >> it's much >> simpler, easier to port and more robust to just use an ER macro with >> unhygienic >> matching. >> > > Thinking about it more, I don't quite see how syntax-parameters could do > this. > Ah, indeed - I forgot the parameters need to be bound globally as syntax parameters, and these still need to match hygienically. Syntactic closures would make it easy to implement unhygienic parameters, but I guess that's not possible with syntax-case. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
