Bottom-Up vs Top-Down Macroexpansion

What if we macroexpand depth-first? Don't you think that macros get more powerful?

Top down is more powerful. In the outer macro you can do whatever traversal you like into the nested code. Even calling macroexpand on it, and then changing it after that. So you can implement bottom up macros if you want to.

>>9
That's a nice idea but it's hard to make sense of for vanilla lisp which doesn't enforce static types. You can write a function that takes source of some language in sexp form as an input and outputs a registry of variables tied to scopes with static type information.

>>12
Racket a shit.