[racket] Lesson from the macro exercise

There have now been several solutions to the macro exercise.
Is there a systematic approach of deriving a solution?

Here are some steps that could be included in a macro writing recipe.

1.  Write some examples with their expected results.
     Remember corner cases
     (Get to know the semantics. Are all cases made explicit?)
2.  Write some examples of errorneous usage of the macro.
     (Get to know the syntax. Write down a BNF if it is missing.)
     Write down the corresponding error messages. Word them
     in terms of the macro construct.
3.  Manually write your examples in code without using
     the construct you are about to define. If a construct
     with a similar behavior already exists, use it.
4.  Look for a pattern to determine how the macro expands.
     (It helps to name the various subexpressions.)
5.  Implement the macro
     5a. Use syntax-case and with-syntax to give names to
          parts of your input.
     5b. Use generate-temporaries to generate new names.
     5c. Use define-syntax-parameter and syntax-parameterize if your
          macro uses a new keyword.
     5d. Use raise-syntax-error to signal syntax errors.
          Use the 3rd argument of raise-syntax-error to make the error
location precise.
     5e. Use define-for-syntax to define helper functions.
6. Test your macro.
    Use all examples from 1.
    Test the case where your macro is used in the output of another macro.


Note: syntax-rules macros are not the best choice for informative
error messages.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard