> On Aug 27, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: > > Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > >> The problem is that in Guile 2.2, whenever (define <id> ...) is found in >> the expanded code, where <id> was introduced by a macro (i.e. not passed >> as an explicit argument to the macro), Guile will rewrite the <id> into >> a new name based on the hash of the entire definition form. > > I forgot to mention that only top-level definitions are munged in this > way. > > Also, my parenthetical definition of what it means to be "introduced by > a macro" lacked precision. To avoid <id> being "introduced by a macro", > it's not enough for <id> to have been passed an argument to the macro > that generated the definition. If that were the case, you could work > around this by adding an additional layer of macros, where the upper > layer generated <id> and passed it down to the lower layer which would > generate the definition. > > To avoid <id> being considered "introduced by a macro", <id> must > ultimately occur verbatim in the source code outside of any macro > template.
I have read through the posts, and the Guile 2.2 ref manual. The explanations are not quite complete in my mind. If all top-level id's introduced by macros were munged, then it would break a lot of existing code. See, for example, the `define-structure' example in "The Scheme Programming Language", 4th ed. It seems identifiers introduced by datum->syntax are preserved, as long as they are not redefined. Is that correct? In my case, I was redefining by architecture (or convention). I was generating "wrap-" + <identifier> in a macro that called a another macro that made the same definition. Is it bad form to assume an convention like this? Off to do more reading on this: Dybvig's paper on syntax-case and I have the book too. and R6RS ... Matt
