Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> 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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports