From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#13995: Problem with macros whose expansions define and use auxiliary macros Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:30:05 -0400 Message-ID: <87d2uuc736.fsf@tines.lan> References: <87mwu0fgmi.fsf@tines.lan> <87boae1c9w.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363800684 17116 80.91.229.3 (20 Mar 2013 17:31:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:31:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13995@debbugs.gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 20 18:31:49 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMrY-0005U0-OI for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:31:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49118 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMrB-0008MW-GJ for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35614) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMr8-0008MO-1k for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMr6-0000Gd-Jz for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:18 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:33801) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMr6-0000GY-Gu for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMso-0007PC-7U for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:33:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mark H Weaver Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13995 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 13995-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13995.136380073728359 (code B ref 13995); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:33:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13995) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Mar 2013 17:32:17 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37910 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMs4-0007NK-Uk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:32:17 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:40705) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMs2-0007NB-EY for 13995@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:32:15 -0400 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=tines.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UIMqC-0000BE-Db; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:30:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87boae1c9w.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:33:31 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:6987 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > Have you tried master? I just did, and my toy example works there. Do you think that commit de41e56492666801078e73860a358e1c63cbc8c2 is the reason? It would be nice to get this working in stable-2.0 as well, but I guess that would require working through our disagreement over the handling of macro-introduced top-level identifiers. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2011-11/msg00016.html I still strongly believe that we should follow the standard behavior, namely that each invocation of a macro must introduce fresh identifiers (even if the macro operands are identical) just as every invocation of a procedure must introduce fresh lexical variables (even if the procedure arguments are identical). Regards, Mark