[r6rs-discuss] Expansion order [was: Now, where were we?]

[Andre van Tonder]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Christian Sloma wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 21:51:45 Andre van Tonder wrote:
>>
>> The expansion process for <library body> could have been declared to be
>> exactly the same as the expansion process for <top-level body>, which
>> allows interleaved expressions that are not inside a define.  The fact that
>> it wasn't so defined was just an arbitrary design choice.
>
> It could have been and it should have (IMHO) been, but it was not :) which is
> exactly what we are talking about here: the ability to reference macros before
> they are defined negatively impacts code that does not even use macros.

I am not sure if we are talking past each other.  In an R6RS <toplevel body>
you have /both/ the ability to reference macros before they are defined
/and/ the ability to interleave expressions with definitions.  This is an
existence proof that the former does not exclude or negatively impact the 
latter.