Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > This, I think, is really just a matter of degree. As much as the bodies > of let and cond deviate from normal scheme in that they contain lists > whose first member is not a procedure to apply to something,
At the end of the day, that only works because the syntax expander has hard-coded knowledge of lambda (and if). It could also have hard-coded knowledge of let, depending on whether the underlying Scheme is willing to see lets or not. > Alex wants to see symbols rather than identifiers. A macro is free to > interpret cons cells, numbers, strings, and so on found in its body as > it sees fit, so why can't it interpret symbols outside of the context > of lexically bound identifiers? It can, if it is not a syntax-rules macro; we all agree on that. Forgive me for being thick, though; why isn't it enough to list these symbols in the exceptions list of syntax-rules? Isn't the whole point of those that they match as if non-hygienic regardless of whether they have been bound to a syntax error (as in R7RS) or not (as in R5RS)? -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] The work of Henry James has always seemed divisible by a simple dynastic arrangement into three reigns: James I, James II, and the Old Pretender. --Philip Guedalla _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
