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

[AndrevanTonder]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, David Van Horn wrote:

> 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)?

I think so.  The language in the 8th paragraph of 6.2 implies that ... and _
refer to bindings.  Since there is no concept of exporting non-bindings, I
think 9.1 also implies that => and else must be bindings, and will therefore
be shadowed as you showed in the => example.

Andre