Maybe this help to see what I'm after, #'(let ((x v)) #.(f #'x))
<=> (let-syntax ((g (lambda (stx) (syntax-case stx ((_ x) (f #'x))))) #'(let ((x v)) (g x)) Now I would like to have a corresponding #.@ notation as well but can't find an analog for that :-( /Stefan On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > Hygiene is harder to maintain. e.g. I kept on hitting this kind of code > > snippets > > > > #'(let ((x v)) > > #,(f rest #'x)) > > > > The problem with this code is hygiene, I need to make a gensym and use > > with-syntax to bound x to that gensym in order to be safe > > at the macro expansion. > > What do you mean? Here ‘x’ leads to a newly introduced binding. > > Likewise, the code below doesn’t introduce bindings non-hygienic > bindings, and is non-ambiguous: > > (macroexpand '(let-syntax ((f (lambda (s) > (syntax-case s () > ((_ x y) > #`(let ((p x)) > (+ p #,(identity #'y)))))))) > (f 1 2))) > > => #<tree-il (let (p) (p-28239) ((const 1)) (apply (toplevel +) (lexical > p p-28239) (const 2)))> > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > > >
