The go authors could do what they originally did with generics: only let the compiler/stdlib have macros. Also, go users have _already_ started parsing comment

The go authors could do what they originally did with generics: only let the compiler/stdlib have macros. Also, go users have _already_ started parsing comments for magic strings, so it's not like setting an example of using comments is stopping users from doing this crap too. A macro language which is defined in a clear and consistent way definitely seems less magic than a macro language which has no real definition, other than examples of comments.