From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Josef Wolf Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Need help to understand a macro Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:55:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20100322195518.GD31143@raven.wolf.lan> References: <20100319085701.GA31143@raven.wolf.lan> <8739zwffsy.fsf@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269288028 9607 80.91.229.12 (22 Mar 2010 20:00:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:00:28 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 22 21:00:23 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtnnS-0004ST-Fm for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:00:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58491 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtnnS-0001yB-4u for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:00:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NtnnM-0001xi-EJ for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:00:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35425 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtnnK-0001wq-Ht for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:00:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtnnJ-0001yX-8C for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:00:14 -0400 Original-Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:36148 helo=mail.inka.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtnnI-0001yF-Vf for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:00:13 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.inka.de (uucp@[127.0.0.1]) by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5) id 1NtnnH-0001gi-HU; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:00:11 +0100 Original-Received: by raven.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 26201760B0; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:55:18 +0100 (CET) Mail-Followup-To: Josef Wolf , guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8739zwffsy.fsf@gmx.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:7702 Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:15:57PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > defmacros are bound to bite you in the proverbial ass real hard when you > combine them with modules, so it's best to avoid them like the > plague. At least that's my experience, FWIW. Thanks for the warning. I'd like to understand why this is dangerous, though. Do you have an example for me? Do common-lisp macros suffer from the same problems or is this a scheme specific problem? Please note that I am very new to lisp, so please don't beat me if I ask dumb questions :-)