On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just now, Alex Shinn wrote: > > I never thought I'd have to explain this on a Scheme or Lisp related > > list, > > I never thought that I'd need to explan hygiene or its benefits or how > scope works on a Scheme related list, let alone the list where the > supposed future of the language is discussed. > Sorry, I did not mean that in a snarky way. And again and again - I'm not arguing against hygiene! I've implemented several hygienic macro systems from scratch and studied several others. I program exclusively with hygienic macros, and for a long time have been advocating people switch as well since as we both know you can't mix hygienic with unhygienic. This discussion isn't about an unhygienic macro, but about selective "unhygienic" literal matching, although that name is misleading. Rather, it's a type of low-level macro that looks at symbol names, and how we could potentially do the same thing with high-level macros. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
