On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Peter Bex wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:12:01PM +0200, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> If I change (define val init) to (define-for-syntax val init), the
>>> generated "var" macro will pick up on it.
>>
>> I am suprised that you needed to do define-for-syntax here, as the
>> *value* of the `val' bindings is not needed at expansion time; the
>> expander must only note that there is such a binding.
>
> Yeah, this is probably another bug :)
> We've been cleaning up a lot of these kinds of bugs lately, but we're
> not completely there yet :)

If it helps, if you only use SYNTAX-RULES, DEFINE-FOR-SYNTAX is never
necessary.  In fact, there is no way you can ever access meta-level
DEFINE-FOR-SYNTAX bindings using only SYNTAX-RULES macros.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports