[racket] Plea for neologism (was: Re: letoverlambda)

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:10:23AM -0800, John Clements wrote:
> 
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 11:08 AM, John Clements wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Nov 20, 2010, at 9:01 PM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> >> 
> >>> But I didn't get the
> >>> impression that all or even most of the macro techniques were
> >>> unhygienic. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hygiene is a technical term. The idea is roughly that 
> >> the __macro system__ (as a whole) should respect the 
> >> lexical structure of your program. That is, by default
> >> no programmer should be able to accidentally write a 
> >> macro that messes up lexical bindings in a subtle way. 
> > 
> > Dave Herman mentioned this to me some time ago, and my immediate response was this: okay, if the term "hygiene" refers to a macro system and not to a macro, then *what word* should we use to describe macros that violate transparency? "non-transparent"?
> 
> Oh dear... would that word be "anaphoric"?

I doubt it.  "Anaphoric" already has a very specific meaning in this 
kind of context.

A traditional riddle among linguists is this:

Q: What's the difference between a dead sheep and a dead sheep?

A: Anaphoric blocking

Anaphoric blocking refers to the rule that an identically repeated 
indefinite noun phrase never refers to the same thing both times.

So methinks anaphoric may not be the right word here.

-- hendrik