This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 76 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 76 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
The issues section states:"Macros that expand into the implicit-naming layer might have unexpected behavior, as field names that are distinct as identifiers may not be distinct as symbols, which is how they're used."
^^^^^^^^^^ Is the concept of distinctness defined with respect to symbolic equivalence? It is not obvious to me that this should be the case. In the context of syntax-case, my first thought was that perhaps free-identifier=? might be a more appropriate predicate for distinctness, but then the following occurred to me: (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((_ f) (define-record-type p (fields (mutable x) ; - would make a secret p-x (mutable f)))))) ; - would make a toplevel p-x ; when called as below (foo x) In implementations of syntax-case that treat defines on macro-generated identifiers as establishing "secret" bindings (such as Chez and PLT), the p-x bindings for the two fields would be distinct, and not interfere, even though they are free-identifier=? So the example would probably work. Regards Andre