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.

Racket: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/stxparam.html
Guile: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Syntax-Parameters.html
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@ccil.org
through sheer volume -- that is another misconception.  --Mike to Peter

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