Alan Manuel Gloria <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:
> I was reading through Guile-devel and found this gem by Mark H. Weaver:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/xxxxxx@gnu.org/msg10088.html
>
> Particularly the following exchange between Ludo' (>>) and Mark (>):
>
>>> It’s also unhygienic, in the sense that programs that need it would
>>> typically have to start with a definition of $nfx$ & co., although these
>>> identifiers never appear literally in the neoteric code.
>>
>>I agree that this is not ideal, but I see no way around it without
>>losing the benefits that these (optional) features are meant to provide.
>>
>>Apart from the fact that $nfx$ et are meant to be defined by the user,
> 8<--- snip! read it at the address provided above
>
> The explanation might look good in the design rationale.

Feel free to use anything I've written on this subject in the SRFI-105.

    Mark