The body of a syntax definer should be allowed to be a macro call

[johnwcowan]

Currently Chicken doesn't support things like this:

(define (baz) 32)

(define-syntax foo
  (syntax-rules ()
    ((foo) (syntax-rules () ((bar) (baz)))))))

(define-syntax quux (foo)) ; fails with "foo not defined"

On most Schemes that support macro varieties other than syntax-rules (and therefore extend R5RS in this situation), macro calls are expanded in this position, and (quux) evaluates to 32. However, on Chicken they aren't. They should be.

[sjamaan]

I believe this to be incorrect: you are mixing phases. The definition of foo defines a macro that needs to be available when defining quux, which is syntax, so it needs to be defined in a higher/earlier phase (what's the correct term for this?) than quux.

This works when you wrap the definition of foo in a begin-for-syntax, or if you put it in a separate module and import it for syntax:

(define (baz) 32)

(begin-for-syntax
  (define-syntax foo
    (syntax-rules ()
      ((foo) (syntax-rules () ((bar) (baz)))))))

(define-syntax quux (foo))

(print (quux)) ; prints 32