[Chicken-users] Placing "gensyms" in own namespace?

[Kon Lovett]

Hi Folks,

Looking at the current psyntax source I notice the use of 'gensym?'.  
Now, given the Chez Scheme providence, the use of this makes sense.  
However, implementing it in Chicken requires changes.

1) It isn't needed for psyntax since use of "annotations" can  
compensate. But it does mean a faster expander w/o annotations isn't  
likely.

2) Implementing in Chicken isn't hard; just means use of the  
"qualified symbol" facility. Below are 2 ideas:

> Place gensyms in a namespace (i.e. qualified symbols). Either a  
> "real" namespace, such as (gensym) => '##$#g123' or a "fake"  
> namespace where the maxlen of namespace name is reduced to 30 & a  
> symbol string len of 31 means a gensym (w/ some extra overhead in  
> the "library.scm" 'split' procedure). Read/write invariance is an  
> issue though.

The 2nd idea above is similar to the way keywords are identified.

(BTW, this doesn't have anything to do w/ munged exported module  
symbols - the "xxx$$yyy" stuff.)

Best Wishes,
Kon