Re: [Chicken-users] define-syntax available *by default*?

[Tony Garnock-Jones]

Right, that's a shame :-( but is it a good enough reason to keep 
define-macro around as the *default* macro-expander? Would it be 
acceptable to you to have it available via command-line switch etc instead?

Tony

Michele Simionato wrote:
> I take back my statement "high-level define-macro works better than
> low-level define-macro".
>
> For some reason it is subtly different: in particular it DOES not
> work with an inner define-macro inside another define-macro, even in
> the REPL, wherea the low-level system has not problems.