Tim Disney

@gkovacs indeed that will avoid the renaming but hygiene is obviously broken now.

I also would find that behavior surprising...it's the current behavior :) ```js syntax m = function (ctx) { return #`foo${x}`; } m ``` expands to: ```js foo$; { x; }...

@vendethiel released: https://github.com/sweet-js/sweet-core/releases/tag/v3.0.8

> It's not in the list of keyword tokens. That's because `of` isn't a keyword. It's contextual :) I'm pretty sure `yield` is another one we have a problem with...

We had them in 0.x and I do want to add them back. readtables #535 might be sufficient but if not we can discussion how to add true multi-token macro...

Right, you would need to check to make sure the `;` exists for the example to really work but that just makes the example more confusing than necessary. Better to...

Actually, why don't you remove the `;` from the source? That demonstrates that expansion is ASI aware but avoids complicating the macro code.

Yeah, racket calls this `begin-for-syntax` and we've discussed it before in the context of the initial [module implementation](https://github.com/sweet-js/sweet.js/pull/531#issuecomment-211281804). I definitely want this but haven't found a syntax I'm happy with...

Agreed. Seems like our options are either violate DRY or violate lexical nesting. I don't like either. On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 2:41 PM Justin [email protected] wrote: > Well,...

> (though I'll have to make some changes to https://github.com/sweet-js/sweet.js/blob/master/src/reader/utils.js#L234-L241) Funny story, I've already done that 😄Was yak shaving on it earlier this week, little more cleaning and I'll push...