Matthew Flatt wrote:

 > At Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:55:11 -0500 (EST), Andre van Tonder wrote:
 > > It does not seem to distinguish the
 > > meta-phases that occur when LET-SYNTAX is nested,
 >
 > I really should have caught this omission!
 >
 > I'll work on this and get back to you. I'm not yet sure what the
 > resolution will be.

 It is a tricky problem.  I might point out that the module proposal
 I have up at:

   http://www.het.brown.edu/people/andre/macros/index.htm

 contains a reasonably comprehensive specification of one possible
 resolution to just this issue, as well as a working prototype, that is
 very similar in other respects to the current SRFI.

 It is, of course, based on your published work, but handles the syntactic
 tower issue similarly to Scheme48, which can nest FOR-SYNTAX
 statements to effect imports into an arbitrary level.  I suspect Chez can
 do something similar with nested METAs, as your coauthor will be able to
 confirm or deny.

 Regards
 Andre

------------- End Forwarded Message -------------