> > And how can I believe you? this is just too late. > Huh? See it from my point of view: for all I know, you could as well have made an error, then pretende

> > And how can I believe you? this is just too late. > Huh? See it from my point of view: for all I know, you could as well have made an error, then pretended you were not really writing in CL but a nebulous Lisp; hours laters, after having looked around in the archives, you come back and say "It was actually EuLisp". I am not really saying you actually did this, but I am not ready to believe all you say blindly either. Clarifying things up front would have been way more credible. > Also, it's not "a dialect of Lisp known only by me". It happens to be EuLisp [...]. I figured that, as such, it would be accessible to both Lispers and Schemers. Apparently, I was wrong. EuLisp is accessible to both Lispers and Schemers, but you can't blame readers for not guessing what you have in mind when you aren't precise enough in your writings. > The specific language was irrelevant to my point. Only the semantics of defmacro and gensym were relevant. Except your example depends on other things than defmacro and gensym, and those things depend on the actual language you use, which makes the language not irrelevant. Simply saying "Take this EuLisp code...", or "assuming a Lisp-1 dialect..." would have prevented the confusion that would necessarily arise. I wonder why you did not just say that.