Re: Macros: Scheme vs Common Lisp

Craig> If the macro is expanded at top level then there are no lexical bindings Craig> between it and whatever binding it may reference at top level. Your Craig> revised example had a lexical binding between the macro use and top level. Yes, that's exactly the point. Craig> That still doesn't explain how using macroexpand limits the Craig> complexity of the macros that you can write. Using in itself doesn't. However, if I *need* macroexpand to write the macro and check the quoting/unquoting and the hygiene, there is a limit at least to my perception as to what size macro expansions I can still grok. Maybe it gets better with practice. Craig> Macros do not really reference bindings. They alter the lexical environment Craig> by making potentially complex substitutions. That's what they do in Common Lisp. In Scheme, it's different. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla