Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!clyde!burl!codas!mtune!lzaz!bds
From: bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: First Class Environments in Scheme?
Message-ID: <25@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 14:13:37 EST
Article-I.D.: lzaz.25
Posted: Fri Oct 30 14:13:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 10:41:53 EST
References: <3431@sol.ARPA> <23200001@silver> <2095@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <179@yetti.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 14
Keywords: scheme, macros
Summary: syntatic sugar

In article <179@yetti.UUCP>, oz@yetti.UUCP writes:
> In article <2095@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Doug Moen writes:
> >...
> >Has anyone done work that "solves" the macro problem?
> 
> 	Yep. It is scheme84's "syntax extension" facility:

Hmmm. The impression that I got from the report was that the concerns
were not with the "syntatic sugar", but with debugging, handling
redeclaration of macros, and other problems you get when you add an
early binding construct in a late binding, incrementally compiled
world... I admit that I may have misunderstood their concerns though.
(by the way, the macro definition syntax described has been around
for some time I believe).