Chris, thank you for the report!

@Arthur A. Gleckler Could you perform this minor change by hand?

Thanks,

Marc

Am Sa., 27. Aug. 2022 um 23:49 Uhr schrieb Chris Hanson <xxxxxx@chris-hanson.org>:
>
> Nit: the code from Note 2:
>
> (define-syntax foo
>   (er-macro-transformer
>    (lambda (x r c)
>      `(,(r loop) (exit ,(cadr x))))))
>
> Has a typo: ,(r loop) should be ,(r 'loop)
>
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 11:16:50 PM PDT Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > Am Mo., 22. Aug. 2022 um 00:29 Uhr schrieb Chris Hanson <xxxxxx@chris-
> hanson.org>:
> > > I’m not familiar with the term "robust unhygienic macros” and an internet
> > > search didn’t reveal any definitions.
> >
> > The term was coined by myself for the purpose of SRFI 211.
> >
> > > Is there a definition of this term, or better yet, a paper?
> >
> > Unfortunately no.
> >
> > What I mean by a "robust unhygienic macro" is an unhygienic macro that
> > even works when the unhygienic macro becomes part of the body of a
> > second macro expansion.
> >
> > Please see "Note 2" under "Explicit-renaming macro" for an example.
> >
> > > I’m a little confused because the SRFI claims that explicit-renaming
> > > macros
> > > can produce "robust unhygienic macros” yet syntactic-closure macros
> > > cannot.
> > > However, explicit-renaming is virtually identical to “reverse” syntactic-
> > > closure macros, which are syntactic-closure macros with the definition and
> > > use environments flipped.
> >
> > ER macros implemented with SC (syntactic closures) are indeed not
> > "robust" (according to my findings). SRFI 211 describes a variation of
> > ER (implemented with marks & substitutions) that can be used to define
> > unhygienic macros that are "robust". The variation of ER is not 100%
> > compatible with how ER is classically implemented.
> >
> > You can write down the example in Note 2 for SC as well.
> >
> > Does this help?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > PS My time this week is limited, so please excuse the rather brief reply.
>
>
>
>