Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
> Alex wants to see symbols rather than identifiers. A macro is free toIt can, if it is not a syntax-rules macro; we all agree on that.
> interpret cons cells, numbers, strings, and so on found in its body as
> it sees fit, so why can't it interpret symbols outside of the context
> of lexically bound identifiers?
Forgive me for being thick, though; why isn't it enough to list these
symbols in the exceptions list of syntax-rules? Isn't the whole point
of those that they match as if non-hygienic regardless of whether they
have been bound to a syntax error (as in R7RS) or not (as in R5RS)?
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports