On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > > > 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)? > The point of the literals list is that they match at all. Otherwise it's just a placeholder that matches anything. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
