MS> (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((foo) bar))) MS> BAR always refers to the binding of BAR lexically visible in the MS> macro definition. Holger> Hmm. Holger> (setq bar 23) Holger> (defmacro foo () bar) Holger> (foo) => 23 Holger> (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) => 23 Holger> (setq bar 57) Holger> (foo) => 23 Holger> (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) => 57 Holger> So, what do you want ? That foo always refers to 23 regardless whether Holger> I have changed the value of bar in the mean time ? No. I think the problem is that many C and Common Lisp programmers confuse the concepts of "binding" and "assignment." Binding a value to a name means creating a new association between the name and the value. Assigning a value to a name means changing the value an already-existing binding. These are two very different things. Sadly, in C it's possible to create bindings without values, and in Common Lisp, assignment (via setq) may create the binding if it doesn't exist yet. Thus, in your example, (setq bar 23) [if done in fresh CL session] creates a binding which associates 23 with BAR, and: (setq bar 57) modifies the binding created previously. Your example evaluates BAR at macro-definition time which surely is not what you intended. (I.e., (foo) expands to 23, regardless.) What I want is: (setq 23) (defmacro foo () 'bar) (foo) => 23 (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) => 23 [note: CL actually yields 42] (setq bar 57) (foo) => 57 (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) => 57 [note: CL actually yields 42] Note that this is exactly what actually *would* happen if you wrote: (defun foo () bar) instead of the defmacro. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla