Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@x> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> 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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports