[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> Really, when you want to wrap macros on top of a non-macro-based DSL,
> the only solution is to use unhygienic matching. But there's no way
> to do this with syntax-rules, which is all we have in both R5RS and
> R7RS small.
> This is a SERIOUS problem. I'm still unaware of any halfway decent
> solution, and although I don't think we're without hope, I'd appreciate
> it if people stop putting their head in the sand and pretending there
> isn't a problem here.
If I understand this rant correctly (and I'm not sure I do), and if I
understand syntax-parameters correctly (and I'm even less sure of that),
then they seem to be a solution to this problem of adding just a little
controlled non-hygiene to syntax-rules. What I don't know (and I think
nobody knows) is whether they can be implemented on top of syntactic
closures or explicit renaming. You are probably in the best position
of anybody to find out the answer to that.
Scheme Workshop paper: http://www.schemeworkshop.org/2011/papers/Barzilay2011.pdf
That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan
and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and disinformation in your posts cowan@x
through sheer volume -- that is another misconception. --Mike to Peter
Scheme-reports mailing list