From: Day (day7195891 at gmail.com) Date: Fri Nov 23 22:45:31 EST 2007 |
|
I have an interesting and curious question: Is it possible to define define-syntax using Scheme (without using any higher macros, just scheme itself)? You know that macros of a language is in a higher level than the language itself. It's said it's easy to define a low level notion in higher level objects, but it's hard vice versa. We can use define- syntax etc. to define a transformation rule. How about using scheme to define that that defines transformation rule?
Posted on the users mailing list. |
|