Re: nested macros and intentional hygiene violation

[Bruce Hoult <address@hidden>]

In article <3D82167D.293C9228@lucent.com>,
 Gabor Greif <ggreif@lucent.com> wrote:

> Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > 
> > Is the ?= hygiene violation indicator intended to allow a nested macro
> > to refer to bindings introduced by a surrounding macro, or only to
> > bindings in the top-level source code?
> 
> I am inclined to say the former, but if I think of macro-introduced 
> identifiers
> being hygienic (kind-of gensymed) it may be that they cannot be captured even 
> with an unhygienic reference.
> 
> So just introduce a macro biding using ?= and capture it using ?=.

That's worse than my current solution, because the user doesn't *expect* 
all those bindings to appear, possibly shadowing other things they might 
want to refer to in the ?body.

-- Bruce