anchor.diff:  (in-package #:cl-user)
   
  -;;;; I started writing a "proper" easy-backquote-nesting.lisp but it's taking too long and I'm tired and I feel the pressure to release this thing so for now I'll just cheat and skip many steps and get right to the raw matter of my technique itself, without any context whatsoever. The intended audience is experienced lispers who already know what backquote nesting is and why you'd want to use it.
  +;;;; I started writing a "proper" easy-backquote-nesting.lisp but it's
  +;;;; taking too long and I'm tired and I feel the pressure to release
  +;;;; this thing so for now I'll just cheat and skip many steps and get
  +;;;; right to the raw matter of my technique itself, without any
  +;;;; context whatsoever. The intended audience is experienced lispers
  +;;;; who already know what backquote nesting is and why you'd want to
  +;;;; use it.
   
  -;; Here's the macro we want to write. It's not a really great example for what I want to illustrate because there isn't a lot of variety but I'm in a bit of a hurry and it should be "good enough" (feeling depressed yet?).
  +;; Here's the macro we want to write. It's not a really great example
  +;; for what I want to illustrate because there isn't a lot of variety
  +;; but I'm in a bit of a hurry and it should be "good enough" (feeling
  +;; depressed yet?).
   (defmacro define-multidef-macro (name global-args local-args &body body)
     (let ((local-args-var (if (consp local-args)
   			    (first local-args)
  
positive.code: 			 (nreverse ?,collect))))
  	   ,@body)))))
  
  ;; Now we're ready to deal with the innermost backquote/leftmost unquotes. At this point we can conveniently ignore the outermost context/rightmost unquotes that we just wrote.
  
  #+nil
  (defmacro define-multidef-macro (name global-args local-args &body body)
  
negative.code: 			     (push ,,to-collect ,',collect)))
  			 (nreverse ,',collect))))
  	   ,@body)))))
  ;; And now you see why this is a bad example ;P
  ;; It's ,', almost everywhere.
  
  
  ;; I have to say, even with this technique, I can't quite read the
  ;; classic definition of ONCE-ONLY (I'm beginning to think some kind
  ;; of special technique was used to painfully craft it). I don't even
  ;; know for sure that it still works for levels of backquote nesting
  ;; beyond 2, but I suspect it ought to. Maybe it works in theory but
  ;; doesn't work in practice? Would be funny because the technique I
  ;; just exposed sort of doesn't work in theory (it doesn't give you a
  ;; mental model of how things actually work) but it works in practice.
  
  ;; With this, I hope the reign of terror of nested backquotes is over.
  