Re: [Chicken-users] macro systems and chicken (long)

[Graham Fawcett]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:11 AM, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
>  I'm currently working on a hygienic version of chicken (explicit-renaming +
>  syntax-rules) which is a first requirement for a full, macro-aware
>  module system (which is also being implemented). This will be fully
>  integrated and compatible with all special features (non-contiguous
>  local definitions, curried and empty "define" and DSSSL lambda-lists),
>  provide compiled macros (with support for the runtime-macros 
> option/declaration)
>  and proper handling of syntactic environments. This will also obsolete
>  all external macro expanders and provide a more uniform handling of
>  extensions that provide syntax.

Excellent!

>  The downside is that define-record and in particular define-macro have to go.

define-record has to go? That's scary. I can live without define-macro
(now that Alex has shown me how to do low-level macrology without it)
but define-record is fundamental, no?

Graham