[racket] Macros as a first class objects?

From: Noel Welsh (noelwelsh at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 09:00:13 EDT 2010

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Thomas Chust <chust at web.de> wrote:
> The distinction between a "macro" and a "regular procedure" cannot be
> made based on the type of the object but only based on whether it is
> (potentially) executed during expansion or during runtime. If the
> distinction between these phases was removed you would get a different
> programming language, but I don't think it would make any sense at all
> to talk about "macros" in that language.

Some people do argue for removing all phase distinctions and calling
the language Scheme. E.g.:


It's not a rabbit hole I find particularly interesting to return to,
but there you have it.


Posted on the users mailing list.