Re: Reference implementation's use of datum->syntax is not portable
William D Clinger 30 Aug 2009 16:45 UTC
Over a year ago, Andre wrote:
> Just a little note regarding correctness of the implementation. The snippet
>
> (datum->syntax
> #'tname
> `(,type-name ,fields ,parent
> ,(if constructor-args
> (list constructor-name constructor-args)
> constructor-name)
> ,predicate-name
> ,accessor-fields ,mutator-fields))))))
>
> is hygienically incorrect.
That has been changed in the new reference implementation, which I believe
to be hygienic (modulo its deliberate introduction of new bound identifiers).
Will