Mon Oct 18 04:59:16 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
I'd be glad too. I have to finish my work on the modules firt :-)
> > 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
> > unification.
> Can you elaborate on this. I'm not sure what you are refering to.
I share this with Marc.
> > 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))
> (else expr)))
You can have a look at the Bigloo documentation. It supports
More information about the R6RS