On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Alaric Snell-Pym <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Exactly, just provide a wrapper. As I said in an earlier mail, use (syntax-object-transformer (lambda (x) ...)) instead of the raw (lambda (x) ...). This solves all compatibility problems, and loses nothing. There's no reason not to do it. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
