Hallo,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Marijn hkBst@gentoo.org wrote:
I would be interested in knowing how this proposal compares with implementing a low-level hygienic macro system such as syntactic closures or explicit renaming macros. Actually now that I said that this proposal sounds very much like a (partial?) implementation of explicit renaming macros on top of the defmacro system. Doesn't the paper you referenced mention something like that as well?
I would rather have syntactic closures as well. The paper contribution seems to be focused on the fact that it's possible to write hygienic macros on top of unhygienic macros and symbol macros, which is what Common Lisp has. Besides it says that a code walker is not needed, but that is not a necessity if the macro system would be integrated in Gambit.
Cheers,