Earlier quoted context omitted.
> uniformly believe that syntax-rules is the only macro facility far from it. CLers know that Scheme has zillions of different macro systems. Which makes the whole topic highly confusing and intellectually interesting.
What I meant by that is that CLers usually complain about hygiene as if it was impossible to break. I don't know how many times I have had to explain that syntax-rules is the high level macro facility and that all schemes provide their own lower level macro facility, be it explicit/implicit renaming (chicken), syntax-case (r6rs) or syntactic closures (Chibi?). I understand the complaint that this isn't portable. It i…
or the equivalent of Lisp's DEFMACRO. There are tons of options. But it's a bit disappointing that such a central feature hasn't found acceptance of a main solution in the Scheme world. R7RS small has only syntax-rules AFAIK, and something like syntax-case is planned (?) for the R7RS large (which does not yet exist, AFAIK). It's not even clear to me whether 'syntax-case' is universally seen as 'solved problem'.
Anyone who has a basic idea of Scheme should know that syntax-rules is not the only option - a short look into a manual of an existing Scheme implementation should be sufficient...