This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 93 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 93 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> ... So far, in Scheme, I know that (foo ...) > is a form that does something, and to find out what it does, I > need to know what FOO does. If something does not show up at the > first position in a list, it's a variable reference ... This is true only if you never enclose an expression in a macro call. If you never do, and you never use variable transformers yourself, you won't have any worries. On the other hand, if you do enclose an expression in a macro call, say (M e), and the two forms x and (foo ...) appear somewhere in e, you have no idea what either does unless you understand what M does. Even in R5RS with just syntax-rules, M may replace (foo ...) or x with arbitrary code, throw x back in as the first subform of some other form, or do anything else it wants to do with them. In particular, one can create, in R5RS, a define-class syntactic form that does (almost) exactly what one would use a variable transformer for. That is, the R5RS transformer can convert the instance variable references and assignments within each method body to the appropriate instance accessor and mutator calls. For example, it can convert the (+ x y) in: (define-class point (ivar x y) (method mdist-from-origin () (+ x y))) to (+ (instance-ref self 0) (instance-ref self 1)) I say "almost" because it can replace the references only with a code walk, and a code walk can't be done reliably without knowing all of the forms that may appear in the body of the method, which is generally impossible unless interleaved with expansion. For example, if it doesn't know that (frob x) expands to (quote x) then it won't know not to transform the x in (frob x) to an instance-ref call. Variable transformers let programmers get macros like define-class right. As a bonus, it also makes such macros more transparent. > Ditto here, this extension serves mostly to obscure code. It is > not much of a problem to write (set! (id) e) or even (set! (class > id) e), and be explicit in what you're doing here (using SRFI-17 > or something similar). This is basically addressed above, but I'll point out one more thing. An abstraction that redefines what (set! id e) does can already be defined (in R5RS) without the code walk required for references, by creating a local binding for set!. For example, the define-class form can transform the method body (set! x v) in (define-class rememberer (ivar x) (method remember! (v) (set! x v)) (method recall () x)) to (let-syntax ([set! (syntax-rules (x) [(_ x e) (instance-set! self 0 e)])]) (set! x v)) Variable transformers allow the same thing to be done more transparently. Kent Dybvig