Re: Internal defines

[Tom Lord]

    > From: David Van Horn <address@hidden>

    > Tom Lord wrote:
    > > But I think it is crystal clear (once the subtleties understodd) that 
if the
    > > [R5RS] denotational semantics do not support [R5RS] 5.3 then the
    > > denotational semantics have a bug.

    > The denotational semantics given by R5RS are for primitive expressions and
    > selected built-in procedures of the language that the macro system must
    > transform programs into; it makes no sense for the DS to make mention of
    > macros and their errors.

    > The fact that there is no formal semantics for the syntax transformation
    > language is sad and would be a welcome addition to R6RS, IMO.

One way to do that is to add sufficiently to the set of primitive
expressions and built-in procedures so that macros can be explained
operationally (as a translation into those core elements carried out
by an explicit expand-phase that precedes evaluation).

If you'll forgive the self-promotion, please watch for the upcoming
Pika Scheme announcement on c.l.s. (sometime this month) which does
exactly that.   In a not unrelated fashion, Pika provides a foundation
for module systems.


-t