Scheme language standardization process
On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:10:03 -0400, Andre van Tonder <andre@x> wrote: > Even if we only have SYNTAX-RULES it is possible to confuse macro phases. > > It may be important for some users to know that the following is not > portable. > (This kind of thing is actually not all that uncommon.) > > (define-syntax my-syntax-rules > (syntax-rules () > ((_ blah) (syntax-rules ..........))) > > (define-syntax foo (my-syntax-rules ........)) ;; PHASE ERROR > > This kind of thing would just work in some Scheme implementations, but > others > would require MY-SYNTAX-RULES to be imported FOR EXPAND for the macro > definition > of FOO to work. > > Maybe WG1 could remark on this in the report. This is interesting, since I think that the implementations that allow this tend to be in the implicit-phasing camp, and those that do not tend to be in the explicit-phasing camp. I know that Chez allows this sort of thing, but what about Scheme48 or Racket? I'm pretty sure that Racket would not allow that. I do not have it installed to test it though. Aaron W. Hsu -- Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports