From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: macros, procedure->macro Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:30:01 -0500 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025559192 22745 127.0.0.1 (1 Jul 2002 21:33:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17P8nH-0005uj-00 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 23:33:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17P8n9-0002Vr-00; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:33:03 -0400 Original-Received: from dsl-209-87-109-2.constant.com ([209.87.109.2] helo=defaultvalue.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17P8kK-0001or-00; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:30:08 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEA9EC9; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:30:02 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE070189A; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:30:01 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Dirk Herrmann In-Reply-To: (Dirk Herrmann's message of "Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:56:23 +0200 (CEST)") Original-Lines: 30 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:676 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:676 Dirk Herrmann writes: > That is, if we plan to split up syntax transformation, > compilation/memoization and execution, we could not remove "acros" > and "macros" from the execution, since they may behave differently > every time the same code is executed. > > I therefore strongly suggest to get rid of "acros" and "macros". As > a first step, I suggest to get rid of "macros" and their > scheme-level representative procedure->macro Presuming I'm remembering my most recent look in to this stuff correctly (about 6 mos ago), I believe you're right, but Marius may have further comments. > If all results are positive, I will go ahead and remove the support > for "macros" from guile. After that, I will take a close look at "acros" > and we will play a similar game with "acros" again... It may also be important to consider pssyntax (i.e. syntax-case, etc.). In the end I'd like to have one unified macro system whose behavior and interactions with the rest of guile are very clear. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user