Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic macros

[Felix Winkelmann]

Peter Keller wrote:
> So this option will enable define-macro and define-syntax to be used
> simultaneously? So no more -hygienic option to the interpreter or compiler?
> Or will the meaning of -hygienic change so that it merely forbids low level
> macros?

Hygienic macros have a certain startup overhead both in the
interpreter and compiler, so I would make it still optional
(using the -hygienic option). But, AFAIK define-macro can
be defined in terms of define-syntax, so I'd say code run
with -hygienic can use both hygienic and lowlevel macros.

In fact, I have a working prototype of the new syntax-case
code. I just have to test the integration into the existing
scheme system. Some interesting side effects are that
we can use the alternative `(define-syntax (name x) ...)' syntax
that seems to be fashionable in PLT circles, plus the
Chez module system (doesn't support separate compilation, though).

I will do some more work on that and keep you posted.


cheers,
felix