Re: [Scheme-reports] Unhygienic macros?

[Sanel Zukan <sanelz@x>]

Thanks for detail reply.

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
> Consensus in the Working Group is that they, and the phasing problems
> they introduce, were unsuitable for the small language.  With just
> syntax-rules, we didn't have to worry about the issues of executing
> Scheme code at compile time (that is, macro expansion time).

Ok.

> They will be present in the large language, at least in the form of
> explicit-renaming macros.  Syntactic closures and syntax-rules are also
> possibilities.

As someone who is interest in getting almost full control of expansion
(with expected consequences) and focusing on other
interpreter/compiler details than implement various expanders, I'm
still quite interest in old and well known 'define-macro'.

Is there anyone interest in such feature? I'm I able to propose it and
what prerequisites I should meet?

Best.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports