dyb at cs.indiana.edu
Fri Apr 1 12:19:56 EST 2005
> - At some point, you agreed to make compound syntax objects opaque
> rather than lists. From reading this proposal, I can't really say
> what the representation is, but it should be spelled out somewhere.
The proposal says that syntax objects are opaque and that syntax forms
evaluate to syntax objects. The formal description may need to be even
> Moreover, probably something like SYNTAX->LIST is needed.
It's not needed, since it's easily defined using syntax-case, but perhaps
we should include it anyway.
> - You probably should note somewhere in the actual proposal that, for
> SYNTAX-RULES, you want to drop the R5RS requirement that "The
> <pattern> in a <syntax rule> [...] begins with the keyword for the
> macro." (beginning of Sec. 4.3.2) (Which is being violated by
> everyone and his brother anyway.)
I've made a note of this.
Thanks for your comments.
More information about the R6RS