[r6rs-discuss] cond (and friends) must be hygienic?

From: David Van Horn <dvanhorn>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:23:16 -0400 (EDT)

Section 9.20 contains the following:

   As an example, if let and cond are defined as in section 9.5.6 and
   appendix B then they are hygienic (as required) and the following is
   not an error.

   (let ((=> #f))
     (cond (#t => 'ok))) ===> ok

Am I correct in my reading of R5.95RS in concluding that cond may be
implemented as an unhygienic macro in which the above results in an
invalid application?

If not, where in the document does it specify this? Does it apply to all
of the literals of all of the syntaxes specified in the report (eg. the _
and ... literals of syntax-rules)?

David
Received on Tue Jun 26 2007 - 17:23:16 UTC