[R6RS] SYNTAX-CASE

[Michael Sperber]

Thanks, Kent!

Two remarks:

- 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.
  Moreover, probably something like SYNTAX->LIST is needed.

- 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.)

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla