On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 08:01:01 +0200 Linus Björnstam <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, at 01:02, Chris Vine wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 23:10:28 +0200t > > Zelphir Kaltstahl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Chris and hello Mark, > > > > > > Thank you both for posting your macros! This is really useful and I am > > > looking forward to using this in the next situation where there would be > > > deep nesting or where it seems appropriate in other ways. > > > > > > To understand what is going on in the macro, I wrote a lot of explaining > > > comments and uploaded it in a new repository, where I intend to keep > > > macros I come across and explain them, if I can: > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/ZelphirKaltstahl/guile-scheme-macros/blob/master/threading-pipe-macro/macro.scm > > > > You are using the wrong macro, because the one you have chosen has been > > revealed to be unhygienic. Either use the syntax-rules one (which is > > the simplest) or the revised syntax-case macro. > > > The comparison is also not really fair. The syntax-rules macro is doing > a lot more. A simple syntax-rules macro just inserting everything in > the leftmost position would loo something like > > (define-syntax -> > (syntax-rules () > ((-> exp) exp) > ((-> exp (proc args ...) rest ...) (-> (proc exp args ...) rest ...) > ((-> exp proc rest ...) (-> (proc exp) rest ...)))) > > I wrote this here in the mail without testing, so no guarantees that > it would work. It is simple enough. I think it should work.
I am not sure what comparison you are referring to. However, I was comparing Mark Weaver's syntax-rules macro with my revised syntax-case macro, both of which have the same end result, and suggesting that Zelphir should not use my original syntax-case macro (the one he has referenced in his gitlab repository). You must be thinking of something else.
