On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:37:18PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:Isn't that by definition the case with aux-keywords in syntax-rules?
> Peter Bex scripsit:
> > I think trying to catch these things is misguided. It's fine if an
> > implementation like Racket does this to guide students, but seasoned
> > Scheme programmers don't need this kind of hand-holding.
> On the contrary. The whole point of binding them by default is so that
> they can safely be rebound and used as auxiliary keywords by other macros.
> If they are left unbound, they are inherently non-hygienic.
Adding them to the default environment for this reason seems rather
contrived, unless you go all the way and remove aux-keywords from
syntax-rules altogether. You can't have your pie and eat it too.
Also, I'm not sure if this is R5RS-compatible. The second form in the
following returns 1 in Chibi, Chicken, Gambit, MIT Scheme and Gauche:
(define else #f)
(cond (else 1))
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports