Christian Jaeger christian@pflanze.mine.nu writes:
Joel J. Adamson wrote:
... syntax-rules macros
syntax-rules is incompatible with most Gambit specialities.
Interesting: * I have had a lot of trouble understanding the pattern language anyway, and I have a hard time seeing what the advantages of define-syntax over define-macro anyway. Any thoughts? * Can you elaborate on Gambit's specialties that are incompatible with syntax-rules?
I don't have my heart set on using syntax-rules; I was under the impression that there is some huge advantage of it since in other implementations (MzScheme especially) it is used A LOT.
However, last night after figuring out the namespaces thing, I wrote a syntax-rules macro that looked exactly like I could have written it in define-macro language instead. Also after doing a quick find-grep of the examples and finding no instances of syntax-rules, and many examples of define-macro, I think I'm alright with using define-macro.
whole-sourcefile transformers
Can you tell me more about this technique?
Thanks -- this discussion is very helpful, Joel