On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hey! > > Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > 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)) > > Sorry, I fail to understand the problem you’re trying to solve. > > Hmm The #' probably need to be moved to the left of the expression and there might be problems with phases in this analogy but I guess you saw that I wanted to spin the function f on a syntax argument that contained the binding of x done in the let which is not the case If you do a simple #, The above idiom is not frequent to the point that special syntax is > needed, is it? > > If you want to code your macros like Alex does in ice-9/match.scm then it's not a problem. If you want to try another path using functions in stead of macros and working hard with #, and #,@ you will for complex macros like a matcher need to gensym by hand or destroy the readability of the code. As illustrated by the simple example above. It's not that a devastating issue because I have coded quite a lot of CL macros before and can cope with gensymming, but I find it frustrating to know that there probably exists a better way. > Thanks, > Ludo’. > /Stefan
