Am Mi., 12. Aug. 2020 um 04:20 Uhr schrieb Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:

>> That's an interesting solution. I would, however, prefer an explicit
>> binding construct as this can also be used in a local context and
>> seems to be more in line with how Scheme has been defined so far.

> This requires more magic to ensure that wherever it is used,
> define-auxiliary-syntax on the same identifier creates the same binding.

Can you explain why it would need more magic? I will try to find some
time to implement a demonstration of my proposal for Chibi.

> Jim's solution hooks into the module system, though as a nitpick I think

The solution that hooks into the module system (to which it is morally
orthogonal) is not extensible, while a define-like binding form is the
usual familiar solution for Scheme and allows for whatever extension
that may become interesting later.

Marc