Re: Any way I can I export a macro that expands to "private" symbols?

[Michael Livshin]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Is there any way I can export a macro that expands to reference
> non-exported symbols?  I've had a few cases lately where this would
> have been very useful.  One example is where you'd like to make
> handling optional arguments more efficient for the 0 and 1 arg
> cases.

the Wadell/Dybvig module system includes functionality that lets you
do just that (export some names, but only if used by a particular
macro expansion).

I wonder how easy it would be to implement the current Guile module
system in terms of the Wadell/Dybvig system.  doesn't seem exactly
trivial to me, but would probably make everyone happy.

[ oh, and to (try to) answer your question from one day ago: yes, you
  have to perform ugly magic to make `syntax-rules' do any nontrivial
  stuff.

  `syntax-case' is much more powerful.  it also seems to be the
  emerging de-facto standard (used by Chez, the upcoming MzScheme, and
  a couple of other implementations).

  the downside (at least for me) is that I found the "advanced"
  functionality of `syntax-case' absolutely unpenetrable.  like, I had
  a couple of "hey, I finally get it!" moments, but everything was
  gone the following morning... ]

-- 
Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.
                -- Alan Perlis