[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Unhygienic macros?

Sanel Zukan scripsit:

> First of all, congratulations for (almost complete) R7RS-small! As
> daily Scheme user, I'm a little bit sad for not catching this process
> earlier, but after reading the draft, I would also give approved vote.

Thank you.

> However, I'm curious: was there any talk about unhygienic lowlevel
> macros (define-macro) and/or maybe some proposal for their inclusion?

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).

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

Cash registers don't really add and subtract;           John Cowan
        they only grind their gears.                    cowan@x
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;   
        they only obey the laws of physics.  --Unknown

Scheme-reports mailing list