Comment 7 for bug 378735

> I think you *should* keep track of annotations for all
> atoms (symbols, numbers, booleans, characters, strings,
> etc.).

I think I should too, but have not found an acceptable idea/solution (haven't given it much thought really for a quite a while now).

I have noticed the same 'issue' comes up for annotated-call for procedure calls in macro output (in the original sample, assertion-violation is one). I get a syntax object/list instead of an annotation. Again, I am not really concerned about stepping 'into' macro's (but it might be nice :-) ).

Anyways, I'm gonna play some more :)

Cheers

leppie