On Saturday, January 12, 2013 08:32:18 PM you wrote:
> The point is to be aware that auxiliary syntax is not a silver
> bullet, and that if you're using a macro system
> which allows it there is a place for selective raw symbol
> matching (though the macro itself must be hygienic).
> If you're just using a few keywords parameters or a DSL
> which cannot be renamed or which is simply unambiguous
> and doesn't need renaming, please consider raw symbol
> matching.

I agree that there is no silver bullet, and a proper implementation should
provide a means of doing both. However, I do think that you overstate the
amount of trouble auxiliary macros cause. Indeed, I would be highly suspect of
almost every use of symbol matching in macros that I have seen most commonly
used, including record-type macros. You would have to show me that scope has
zero effect and that the identifiers are in themselves meaningless outside of
their symbolic interpretation within the macro to convince me that this would
make sense. I do not think this is true of any of the macros in the current
standard. SREs *might* benefit from this, but there you create an ecosystem
without much scope. However, what I recall from SRE and the uses that I can
think of to use it would break if I were using symbols to match.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃

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