This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 72 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 72 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Panu wrote:
I'll try to write a macro definition to show the situation I was talking
about:
(define-syntax (can-we-stand-duplicates a-macro)
(quasisyntax
(if ,a-macro
(let ((x 3)) (,a-macro #f))
x)))
(define-syntax (test)
(quasisyntax (can-we-stand-duplicates can-we-stand-duplicates)))
(test)
Thank you for the example, but shouldn't that be instead:
(define-syntax (can-we-stand-duplicates a-macro)
(quasisyntax
(if ',a-macro ; note quote
(let ((x 3)) (,a-macro #f))
x)))
(define-syntax (test)
(quasisyntax (can-we-stand-duplicates can-we-stand-duplicates)))
(test) ;==> reference to unidentified identifier: x#top
... if it works wrong, it expands to (something that evaluates to) 3. If it works right, it expands to something that has an unbound identifier. The reason I suspected the wrong behavior is that in some rewrite-based systems, the fact the both x's are created in the same context (here, in the same quasisyntax) suffices to make them identical, even though they should not be identical across different invocations of the macro.
We do get the right behaviour, since the two x's are created in different /evaluations/ of the quasisyntax form, which suffices to make them different:
(expand (syntax (test))
==> (if 'can-we-stand-duplicates
((lambda (@x8165) (if '#f
((lambda (@x8168) (#f #f)) 3)
x#top))
3)
x#top)
Cheers
Andre