Jakub T. Jankiewicz

Awesome, thank you

It works on my end. You need to provide more information what exactly you're using. Browser, OS, maybe the problem is with your browser extension, so you can try in...

If it's still broken for you, then you don't need to close the issue. Just comment here if you find a reproduction, root cause or a fix.

Can you use your own proxy and see if it works?

The problem with SRFI-210 is not about hygiene: This works fine: ```scheme (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((_ () ((operand1 arg1) ...)) (let ((arg1 operand1) ...) (list arg1 ...))) ((_ (operand1...

The problem was that identifiers in `syntax-rules` were checking the scope if they were not shadowed, but this was wrong. So the code was removed and the unit test updated.

Another problem found from SRFI-210 is this macro: ```scheme (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((_ (arg more ...)) (letrec-syntax ((aux (syntax-rules ::: () ((aux () ((operand1 arg1) :::)) (let ((arg1 operand1)...

This is the limitation of renaming `syntax-rules`, I don't think I can fix this. Inside nested syntax rules everything got renamed including nested `syntax-rules` so `arg1` is renamed before the...

I'm not sure about this. This works fine: ```scheme (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules (x) ((foo) (define x 32)))) ``` But this: ```scheme (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((foo) (define x 32)))) (macroexpand...

It should be possible to implement object literal syntax like this: ``` #{ "foo": "bar" } ``` The extension should use stdin to read the text and process it. It...