On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: > It looks to me like your current implementation of 'syntax-toplevel?' > is actually testing for a top-level _syntactic_ environment, but what > you ought to be testing for here is slightly different.
You are absolutely right. Thank you for spotting this. Unfortunately my scheming knowledge is a bit rusty. > I'm not sure whether the wrap contains enough information to determine that. I don't think it does either. > It might be easier to handle this with 'define-syntax-parameter' and > 'syntax-parameterize'. The idea would be that within slib, 'define' > would be a syntax parameter. Its default expansion would turn it into > 'define-public', and also parameterize 'define' to mean 'base:define' > within the body. If needed, you could also define 'let' and maybe some > other things to parameterize 'define' within the body. > > Another option would be to make 'export' a syntax parameter, and > parameterize it to a no-op within lexical contours such as 'define' and > 'let'. > > What do you think? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this involve re-defining the syntax for all forms with bodies (in order to introduce the syntax-parameterize form)? > I happen to be working on the reader lately. Would it help to implement > SRFI-58 in our reader? While I think SRFI-58 support is great, I don't think slib needs it because it doesn't, to my knowledge, use read syntax.
