Am Fr., 4. Okt. 2019 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Vladimir Nikishkin <
xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
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.
It may work across a number of Scheme systems if, say, "macroexpand" becomes a special form "(macroexpand <stx>)" and not a procedure. When "(macroexpand <stx>)" is evaluated, the form <stx> is fully macro-expanded in the current syntactic context, and the syntax object resulting from the expansion is the value of the "macroexpand" special form.
Here, it will be implementation-defined what a "syntax object" is, e.g. it could be a syntactic closure or an R6RS syntax-object. By fully macro-expanded, I mean that the resulting syntax object does not represent a user-defined macro of the form "(<keyword> ...)" and no user-defined identifier macro of the form "<keyword>".
Marc
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.
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?