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

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

>

> Yes, but this is a problem with renamed bindings introduced by
> hygienic
> macros. For example:
>
> (define-syntax foo
>   (syntax-rules ()
>     ((_ x) (let ((tmp x)) (assert x "failed")))))


riaxpander manages this:

> (use riaxpander)
>
> (define-macro (my-assert test error)
>         `(if (not ,test) (error ,error)))
>
> (define-syntax foo
>         (syntax-rules ()
>                 ((_ x) (let ((tmp x)) (my-assert x "failed")))))
>
> (macroexpand '(let ((x 1)) (foo x)))

> #;24> (macroexpand '(let ((x 1)) (foo x)))
> ((lambda (x#0) ((lambda (tmp#1) (if (not x#0) (error "failed")))
> x#0)) 1)

I deliberately re-used the symbol x there, but it's neatly side-
stepped around that, as far as I can see? Or is there some more
esoteric test case I need to work out?

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/?author=4