[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] stressing the new hygienic macros

From: Michele Simionato
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] stressing the new hygienic macros
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:30:49 +0200

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Alex Shinn <address@hidden> wrote:
> Michele Simionato <address@hidden> writes:
> Chicken 4 extends define-syntax with the er-macro-transformer spec,
> (and with raw lambdas which mean the same thing), but these
> are hard-coded.
> Al* Petrofsky specifically argued that this be allowed, as
> well as
>  (let-syntax ((foo some-other-macro))
>    ...)
> and implemented it in his alexpander.  It's a necessary
> feature for the user to provide his/her own syntax
> transformers defined in terms of existing transformers
> (e.g. super-syntax-rules with extended pattern matching).
> The other syntactic-closures and riaxpander macros systems
> in Chicken 3 also support it, as do MIT Scheme, Ikarus and
> Chibi-Scheme.  PLT doesn't.

PLT does, I have tested it in R6RS mode; it requires some incantation
with metalevels though.

Anyway, this is bad news for me. It means that if I want to define
my own syntax transformers I have to implement them from
scratch from low level macros :-(

My final purpose would be to port my sweet-macros
system to Chicken; see episode #9 of my

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]