<HTML>Several months ago I posted a query regarding matching literals in macros, for which the answer was to use syntax-case* with 'module-or-top-identifier=?'. For my problem at the time, this solved the problem. But a curious point for me, was that I had a problem symbols which were, also bound MzScheme _values_. 'or' and 'and' seemed to work just fine. I think, mistakenly, I concluded that this was a problem for value bindings, but not syntactic bindings. I say this because, while 'or' and 'and' work just fine, with-or-without the use of 'module-or-top-identifier=?', "class" fails even with the use of 'module-or-top-identifier=?'. Now I am just confused ;) The module: (module ex mzscheme (provide test) (require-for-syntax (lib "stx.ss" "syntax")) (define-syntax (test stx) (syntax-case* stx (- or class) module-or-top-identifier=? ((_ (- a b)) (syntax '(subtract a b))) ((_ (class a b)) (syntax '(matched a b))) ((_ (or a b)) (syntax '(intersection a b))) ((_ (op a b)) (syntax '(op a b))))) ) This follows the early proposed solution, and hence, (test (or 1 5)) ==> (intersection 1 5) And, of course, the original "problem" (test (- 1 5)) produces "(subtract 1 5)" as intended. But curiously, (test '(class 1 5)) produces "(class 1 5)" rather than the (intended--for this silly test) "(matched 1 5)". As a work around, I am simply coercing the syntax object into a datum, and testing whether this eq?'s 'class. But is there a better way to deal with this? I have tested this with both v202 and v203, with the same results. Jim </HTML>