Re: Opaque syntax objects

[felix winkelmann <bunny351@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/12/05, Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> The issue has come up in the discussion, but hasn't really been in the
> focus yet:
> 
> I'd like to suggest that compound expressions be represented by an
> opaque type rather than by pairs.  This would ensure a modicum of
> abstraction, and would *really* make comprehensive the ability of all
> syntax objects to carry location information.  I've come to appreciate
> this added layer of abstraction in PLT Scheme.
> 

But wouldn't this completely break the (IMHO) rather practical ability
to destructure arguments passed to macros via normal Scheme operators?
What I like about srfi-72 is that I can write hygienic macros with (nearly)
the same ease as in conventional Lisp-/quasiquote-style. In fact this is 
what I consider the most innovative feature for SRFI-72.


cheers,
felix