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

Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax

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.


Scheme-reports mailing list