Hi y'all -
I have been deeply buried in wrapping various C APIs, and the
repetitive bytevector trickery has led me to a bit of macrology. Now,
this is my first time *ever* using LET-SYNTAX, so maybe I am getting
something wrong here, but using PLT 4.2.1 the following macro expands
as I (almost)
One can always get the effect specified by R5RS by wrapping a (let
() ...) around the (let-syntax ...), which could itself be specified
as a separate syntax-rules macro.
Good point. I'll log this as a bug, and think about
the backwards compatibility issues some more.
Will
