> it just splits Scheme's single problem (lexically binding values in macros) into two problems (lexically binding values in macros, and lexically binding funct

> it just splits Scheme's single problem (lexically binding values in macros) into two problems (lexically binding values in macros, and lexically binding functions in macros). Bingo. Lisp-2 and GENSYM are attempting to solve the same issue in two different use cases. And, if I may add, GENSYM looks a bit lazy and half-assed next to the scortch-the-earth multiple namespaces of Lisp-2. It's like they blew up Lisp with dynamite and then sat down and said "whatever" when the same problem appears in macros. > The real problem, which Naggum includes, is the lack of GENSYM Guile Scheme has both GENSYM and DEFMACRO (unhygienic). I think quite a few Scheme systems err on the side of practical concerns. But that doesn't erase that fact that GENSYM is an ugly hack to get macros to work.