Testing the waters.

[Chris Bitmead uid(x22068)]

>A few data points:
>
>MIT Scheme
>Scheme saved on Monday April 8, 1996 at 7:52:19 PM
>  Release 7.4.4
>  Microcode 11.151
>  Runtime 14.168
>1 ]=> (define-macro (incr x) `(set! ,x (+ ,x 1)))
>;Value: incr
>1 ]=> (let ((a 1)) (incr a) a)
>;Value: 2
>1 ]=>
>
>STk> (define-macro (incr x) `(set! ,x (+ ,x 1)))
>#[undefined]
>STk> (let ((a 1)) (incr a) a)
>2
>STk> (define-class <complex> (<number>) (r i))
>#[undefined]
>STk>   
>
>guile> (define-macro (incr x) `(set! ,x (+ ,x 1)))
>guile> (let ((a 1)) (incr a) a)
>2
>guile>

Yeah well, the proper way of doing macros in Scheme is with
define-syntax, not define-macro.

>(note also that there is interest by the Guile developers to port
>STk's STklos to Guile)

Well if STklos is written in standard Scheme it won't need porting
will it?