On 05/11/11 12:41, Alex Shinn wrote: > > Are you actually arguing that MIT Scheme, Chicken, > Chibi, riaxpander and others should have to rewrite > their entire macro system? When there's a trivial > compromise available? >
What trivial compromise do you have in mind, Alex? Mine is that the exact nature of an expander is implementation-dependent, and that's what macros like "syntax-rules" et al are for: to map from standard forms into the common one. Might not even be a closure, although that is an obvious choice? ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
