The comparison is also not really fair. The syntax-rules macro is doing a lot
more. A simple syntax-rules macro just inserting everything in the leftmost
position would loo something like
(define-syntax ->
(syntax-rules ()
((-> exp) exp)
((-> exp (proc args ...) rest ...) (-> (proc exp args ...) rest ...)
((-> exp proc rest ...) (-> (proc exp) rest ...))))
I wrote this here in the mail without testing, so no guarantees that it would
work. It is simple enough. I think it should work.
--
Linus Björnstam
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, at 01:02, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 23:10:28 +0200t
> Zelphir Kaltstahl <zelphirkaltst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Chris and hello Mark,
> >
> > Thank you both for posting your macros! This is really useful and I am
> > looking forward to using this in the next situation where there would be
> > deep nesting or where it seems appropriate in other ways.
> >
> > To understand what is going on in the macro, I wrote a lot of explaining
> > comments and uploaded it in a new repository, where I intend to keep
> > macros I come across and explain them, if I can:
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/ZelphirKaltstahl/guile-scheme-macros/blob/master/threading-pipe-macro/macro.scm
>
> You are using the wrong macro, because the one you have chosen has been
> revealed to be unhygienic. Either use the syntax-rules one (which is
> the simplest) or the revised syntax-case macro.
>
>
