Danny Yoo had an interesting question on the plt-scheme mailing list recently. At first it seemed like your standard non-hygienic, “I want this to mean something in here” macro question. I used to group macros into three levels of “hygienicness”: the hygienic ones, the ones that are morally hygienic in that the names they introduce are based on their input, and the totally non-hygienic ones that have a fixed name that they stick into the program. An example of the middle set is define-struct, and an example of the third set is a loop construct that binds the name yield in its body.
The third class used to offend me from a purist’s (semi-purist?) perspective. But it’s a very reasonable thing to want to do. Consider the class macro and the names it uses to do interesting things: super, public, field, init, and so on. It depends on those particular names.
Danny Yoo was writing a generator library. He had a define-generator form, used like this:
(define-generator (name . args) . body)
and he wanted yield to have a particular meaning inside of the generator body. He had used the usual non-hygienic technique of creating the right yield identifier using datum->syntax, but he was asking for other ideas.
Dave commented that non-hygienic macros typically do not play nicely together; that is, it can be hard to write other macros that expand into them, because you have to think about what version of the code you want to bind the variable in, and you can’t always tell... it’s a mess. Dave recommended creating two versions of the macro: a non-hygienic front-end that forged the yield identifier, and a hygienic back-end that did the actual implementation. People who wanted to further abstract over generator definitions could use the hygienic version.
But there’s another way to look at it, and that’s what I replied to the mailing list. It got me thinking about the similarities between macros and normal programming, and the different techniques we use.