On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Andre van Tonder <andre@het.brown.edu> wrote:
>
>> (let ((+ -)) (quote +)) => +
>> is matching symbols by name, do we want '-' instead?
>
> That would defeat the purpose of QUOTE.  QUOTE gives a way of writing
> symbolic data (or more generally s-expression datums) literally.  What you
> see on the screen is what you get.  Its value is unaffected by any enclosing
> bindings.  I thnk you are overcomplicating something very simple.

Without LET this would behave just like a normal QUOTE form. The
situation isn't much different from ELSE in COND, which also behaves
normally unless someone tries to bind it to #f.

> I think the confusion comes from the overloading of symbols for identifiers
> and symbolic data.  '+ just denotes a symbolic datum, like 1 or "abc".

Thanks, Andre. Do you have any idea why rebinding UNQUOTE or
UNQUOTE-SPLICING affects expansion of QUASIQUOTE in plt-scheme? If I
could assume that's a regular bug and that the intended behavior is to
match UNQUOTEs by name that would make my job a lot easier.

Andrzej

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