I wouldn't mind having a standard name for a macro-to-procedure converter, even if its semantic or even the result is not specified.

I think that would make writing an IDE for scheme easier. At least in the sense that if the questioned scheme system doesn't support macro expansion, then the dysfunctional GUI elements could be hidden.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 22:30 Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:

Has someone here by chance written a pre-SRFI for macroexpand (or
macro-expand, syntax-expand, etc.)? Would be nice to have a standard way
to find out what code your macros expand to.

Since Scheme has several macro systems (syntax-rules, syntax-case,
CL-style define-macro, maybe others?) does that complicate the interface
of a macroexpander, or is the complexity all in the internals?