<html> <body> At 12:10 PM 9/9/2006, Eli Barzilay wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Sep  9, Blake McBride wrote: > > I can't hardly imagine making it any more complicated.  The simplest > things are made rocket science with define-syntax and friends.  Lisp > macros may not be perfect but normal people (those who don't devote > their life to understanding the intricacies of syntax-case) can use > and understand it.  Syntax-case is killing scheme. This paragraph is very arguable.  It generally depends if by `the simplest things' you mean `macros that capture bindings' or `macros that respect lexical scope'.  CL goes with the former, and Scheme with the latter.</blockquote> I probably mean something like procedural macros that allow you to specify exactly what you want without trying to do it in some higher level 4th generational descriptive pattern language. I believe there is an SRFI about this. A procedural macro language is easier to understand in all but the simplest cases.  It is possible to have a procedural macro extension that is hygienic.  Descriptive languages are great for simple cases and absolutely unwieldy or impossible for complex cases. I know you understand syntax-case and friends but the ongoing volume of questions about scheme macros on the net is indicative of a problem. Average programmers should be able to use a languages without becoming a language expert.  And, I don't believe that the complexity is necessary. (Sorry.  I'm not directing any of this at you.  This is a product of my ongoing frustration over scheme's macro system.  I spend a bunch of effort, basically figure it out, don't use it for a while, and I'm back to ground zero.  I almost never use lisp macros but they are always clear to me.) Thanks. </body> </html>