Fri Oct 15 20:22:55 EDT 2004
> I agree in principle and would be happy to work with you on this,
> but there are some fundamental differences between syntax-case and
> general-purpose matchers like match-case that might prevent their
Can you elaborate on this. I'm not sure what you are refering to.
> If we can't make them 100% the same, perhaps we can still
> make them compatible in some sense so that programmers familiar with one
> can easily use the other and so that implementations can use a common
> underlying implementation.
I agree that this would be good.
Pattern-matching and the record system should work well together, so that
this could be done:
(define-type add x y)
(define (simplify expr)
(match expr ()
((add 0 a) a)
((add a 0) a)
((add a b) (and (number? a) (number? b)) (+ a b))
More information about the R6RS