[R6RS] Re: syntax-case
Michael Sperber
sperber
Wed Oct 20 11:22:50 EDT 2004
>>>>> "Kent" == R Kent Dybvig <dyb at cs.indiana.edu> writes:
Kent> The intent is to include pretty much what's in the note I sent on the
Kent> 15th of September, but we might also include a more general version of
Kent> identifier-syntax, which is currently limited to patterns and templates
Kent> in the sense of syntax-rules.
OK, thanks. Here's a question:
What's the rationale for
(syntax (a b))
returning a list and not an opaque syntax object? That's something
that always bothered me about the original SYNTAX-CASE. (And,
conversely, I like that PLT Scheme does return a syntax object.)
Are there opaque syntax objects for composite things at all in your
proposal? I'm not 100% sure from the wording.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS
mailing list