Thu Apr 7 13:54:41 EDT 2005
> In the interest of moving forward while Manuel considers how we might
> create a compatible general-purpose matcher, I would like for us to vote
> to include syntax-case while leaving open the possibility of changing
> the pattern matcher at a later time. In other words, I'd like for us
> to have, by default, a subset of syntax-case essentially as it exists
> today, so that we have some version of it in R6RS even if we fail to
> come up with a compatible general matcher.
Does anyone object to voting on syntax-case? If there are no
objections by tomorrow evening we'll put it up for a vote.
Overall I like syntax-case so I will vote in favour. The things I
dislike are identifier-syntax (I would prefer that functionality to
be integrated into syntax-case), and that syntax-case can match
non-syntax objects (but Kent's latest proposal has fixed this).
I wish however I could have more experience with using syntax-case.
I tried integrating the portable implementation into Gambit, but
I still can't figure out how to get source-code correlation to work.
Kent, if you have some pointers that would be greatly appreciated.
More information about the R6RS