<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 15:18, Matthias Felleisen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@ccs.neu.edu">matthias@ccs.neu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im"><br> On Jan 9, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Laurent wrote:<br> <br> > (Btw, isn't this macro hygienic?)<br> <br> <br> </div>Of course not. You're introducing a synthetic name that binds stuff.<br></blockquote><div><br>Do you mean `new-id' or its value?<br>In the second case, ok, but then there is no (?) difference with the `with-syntax' macro one.<br> If in the first case, then I'll need to think about it...<br><br><br>For the rest, I probably didn't express my thoughts clearly enough.<br>I don't say that the syntactic information is useless (of course it's not, and even I, not "a real PLT programmer", have used it a few times).<br> What I say is that there should be simple tools, just like syntax-rules and define-syntax-rule (that do not show the syntactic information), but for macros that are a bit less simple like the one discussed here, but still hiding the surrounding syntactic information.<br> So that when I don't need it, I don't have to handle it.<br><br>Otherwise it's a bit like if I ask "How do I draw a sheep?" and get the answer "Here's a library that gives you access to machine-level code" (well, that's very unfair, but you see my point).<br> <br>Laurent<br>P.S. : I'm not blaming anyone, quite the contrary, you guys do a great work and I love PLT Scheme.<br></div></div>