Re: problems with with-syntax

[Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>]

Hey Doug:

> Rats, I keep forgetting Scheme isn't a dynamic language...

>From this, I'm forced to infer that your definition of "dynamic
language" is "one that has a screwed-up notion of scope".  (Well, I
guess this would be consistent with everything we heard at LL1 ...)

We had the kind of scoping you seem to call "dynamic" in older
versions of PLT Scheme (and, indeed, in Lisps since time immemorial).
I'd say the problems it introduces far outweight its benefits.

(I'll let Matthew comment on whether he wants to support
DEFINE-FOR-SYNTAX, but just note that it violates cut-and-pastability.)

Shriram