At Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:56:15 -0500 (EST), Andre van Tonder wrote:
>
>  > At Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:45:19 -0500 (EST), Andre van Tonder wrote:
>  > > Since identifiers introduced by an expansion are distinct
>  > > (in the sense of bound-identifier=?) from library-toplevel
>  > > identifiers, would the following work?
>  > >
>  > >   (library "let-div" "scheme://r6rs"
>  > >     (define-syntax make-export
>  > >        (syntax-rules ()
>  > >          ((_)
>  > >           (indirect-export (quotient+remainder)))))
>  > >
>  > >     (make-export)
>  > >     (define (quotient+remainder n d) ....)
>  >
>  > Yes, because the `make-export' expansion doesn't introduce a binding of
>  > `quotient+remainder'; it merely refers to a binding of
>  > `quotient+remainder' (as well as `indirect-export').
>  >
>  > In other words, the relevant predicate is not `bound-identifier=?' but
>  > `free-identifier=?'. [In PLT Scheme, it's `module-identifier=?', but I
>  > expect this predicate to be renamed `free-identifier=?' in the future.]
>
>  Ah thanks, but I just realized that the example does not conform to the
>  BNF specification of the library syntax in the document.  So the
>  example should not even be possible.  Is this correct?

Oh, that's right. You need

 (indirect-export (M quotient+remainder))

for some locally defined macro M. (Or am I missing something else, too?)

Matthew