These types of macros are very similar to Scheme's syntax-rules macros without the hygiene. Viewing Lisp macros as an arbitrary function from syntax to syntax

These types of macros are very similar to Scheme's syntax-rules macros without the hygiene. Viewing Lisp macros as an arbitrary function from syntax to syntax is fine, but such macros are not very Scheme-y. It's very difficult to have such macros and guarantee they're hygienic, which is why syntax-rules limits you to matching patterns and producing templates -- it effectively limits the kinds of functions which can be macros. Other types of Scheme macros (which are non-standard), like explicit renaming and syntactic closures, require programmers to opt-in to hygiene. syntax-case (which is in R6RS) allows programmers to break hygiene by jumping through hoops, but is otherwise similar to TFA's system as well. So if Scheme is a Lisp and these macros are like Scheme macros, I don't think it's inaccurate to call them Lisp-like macros. But it is imprecise. As an aside, I've written a compiler for a Lisp-like language. Speaking from experience, getting the compiler to answer "yes" to 3 is non-trivial (even though it's dead-simple in an interpreter). I suppose that's why Racket has all the phase distinctions it has.