Re: [Chicken-users] stressing the new hygienic macros

[Michele Simionato]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Alex Shinn <address@hidden> wrote:
> Michele Simionato <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Anyway, this is bad news for me. It means that if I want to define
>> my own syntax transformers I have to implement them from
>> scratch from low level macros :-(
>
> No, you can't define your own _transformers_ (the things you
> pass to define-syntax) with either low or high-level macros.
> The limitation is not in syntax-rules, it's in
> define-syntax, let-syntax and letrec-syntax.

Yep, I understood that.

> However, looking at your sweet macros, you can implement
> def-syntax in either low or high-level macros.  Just define
> a def-syntax macro that expands into a define-syntax macro.
>
> The problem is that then this can't be used conveniently
> with let-syntax and letrec-syntax.  So if you want to define
> your own macro extensions, you need to provide:
>
>  my-define-syntax
>  my-let-syntax
>  my-letrec-syntax
>
> These would then not be composable with any other macro
> extensions.

This is exactly the issue I am unhappy with :-(