Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Joseph Donaldson<[email protected]> wrote: Hello, I have recently seen an interesting expansion of a syntax-rules macro whose definition contained a reference to a expansition-style macro, specifically an instantiate macro introduced by the object system. Here is a simplified example: (define-class foo a)
(define-syntax darn (syntax-rules () ((_) (let ((a 1)) (instantiate::foo (a a)))))) (darn) Unexpectedly, at least to me, this expands to: (let ((a1019 1)) (instantiate::foo (a1019 a1019))) This results in an error because foo does not have a field named a1019. Contrary to my expectations, is the expected behavior? Thanks, Joe
