Am Mo., 31. Aug. 2020 um 23:15 Uhr schrieb Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:44 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am Mo., 31. Aug. 2020 um 15:14 Uhr schrieb Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
>>
>> (2) Whether (let-syntax ((q (syntax-rules () ((_ x) 'x)))) (q #=0(1 .
>> #0#))) is an error or not.
>>
>> Ad (2). This is harder, so I will try to do my best to explain my
>> reasoning. Before macro expansion (and not taking account lexical
>> contexts), a program (or library) is just a Scheme datum (or, rather,
>> represented by one) or a list of datums. The components of that data
>> are again data. When you claim that the language "except in literals"
>> talks about this lexical structure of the program and does not take
>> the expansion (and lexical contexts), "the resulting AST", into
>> account, you seem to implicitly claim that one can single out
>> particular datums in this lexical structure being literals or not.
>
>
> We can, because <literal> also has a precise definition in the formal syntax:
>
>   <literal> -> <quotation> | <self-evaluating>
>   <quotation> -> ’<datum> | (quote <datum>)

No, you can't in any sensible way (see my detailed argument in the
previous post).

Given the program

(import (scheme base) (scheme write))
(define-syntax print
  (syntax-rules ()
    ((print a) (begin (write a) (newline)))))
(print "Hello, World!")

by your reading, "Hello, World!" is not a literal because by following
the production rules without taking macro expansion into account, you
will never get to the production rule of <literal>. You will end up
with <macro use> and be stuck there.