Alex Shinn wrote:This doesn't make any sense. Any macro facility is still something
> Syntactic closures would make it easy to implement unhygienic
> parameters, but I guess that's not possible with syntax-case.
that works by having bindings for identifiers, so whatever it is, it
can't avoid having macro names bound and having these bindings respect
the usual scoping rules. (I can only guess that the above is a broken
attempt to talk about something more similar to a `let-syntax' with an
unhygienically constructed name.)
Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:Right that's his goal, and it is a broken one. As I said earlier,
> AIUI, Alex's goal is to have the same unhygiene that (quote ...)
> has. The symbols within need to be taken just as symbols, not as
> identifiers, and that's that.
life is fine if you accept or reject hygiene completely.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports