Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli@x> 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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports