From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.net.uni-c.dk!uninett.no!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: symbol in macro Date: 01 Sep 2002 22:56:30 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3239909790495015@naggum.no> References: <3239763128549848@naggum.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1030920990 10128 129.240.64.16 (1 Sep 2002 22:56:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Sep 2002 22:56:30 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:39346 * cubicle584@mailandnews.com (Software Scavenger) | Normally when a symbol is mentioned in a macro its package will be in the | context of the macro definition rather than of the macro call. But it seems | obvious to me that the context of the macro call is what might be wanted | and/or assumed by a programmer writing a macro without taking such issues | into account. But, maybe, by a coincidence of the ways things are normally | done, this issue hardly ever manifests itself, so it doesn't get noticed. Why is it referring to that symbol in the first place? Do you want a macro to rely on a protocol of use that requires certain symbols to be defined somehow in the package defined by the programmer that uses your macro and you do not want to supply a default definition? I think I understand what you want to do, but really I do not understand why you want to do it or under what circumstances it would be the right thing to do. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.