bear wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
>
>
>>What if file a.scm defines a macro that file b.scm uses (by refering
>>to syntax defined in a module declared in a.scm)?
>
>
> I regard the difficulty compiling this construction separately,
> as evidence from God that Scheme, having abandoned the first-class,
> mutable, storable, runtime code transforming macro, has fallen
> short of the grace of LISP and uses the wrong macrology.
>
> But we don't want to get into *that* mess, so I'll just point
> to Flatt's "composable and compilable macros" as a tolerable
> compromise - although it breaks true separate compilation.
>

That's fair enough.

cheers,
felix