That works.   (eval `(infix ,(read-syntax `thingy1 (open-input-string "(2 + 3)")))) does produce 5.  Thanks For fun I decided to test it's generality, I tried:  (read-syntax `thingy2 (open-input-string "((("))  Which immedately complained about missmatched parenthisis. I don't really need to do this, but do you know what one would one do if they needed to parse a language that didn't use parenthisis charactors in the traditional maner? Corey <div>On 12/7/06, Danny Yoo <<a href="mailto:dyoo@hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu">dyoo@hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > Is there a way to turn a string into a syntax object without calling read? > Something feels wrong with what i'm doing.  {I mean someting feels wrong > beond the fact that i'm dealing with infix notation ;)} Hi Corey, The function READ-SYNTAX, coupled with making a string look like a port through the OPEN-INPUT-STRING function, should do the trick.  Take a look at READ-SYNTAX in the help desk first, because it needs to take an extra argument, compared to regular READ. > i've written a re-infixer that does the reverse of Dannys "infix" > package. [some code cut] Ack!  I didn't mean for things to get this perverse. </blockquote></div> -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y)))