[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: changes to the design of SRFI-26 "Notation for specializing parameters without currying"
Here are two belated bug reports on the previous draft:
1. "petrovsky" => "petrofsky".
2. The use of (cut "loop" vars proc proc-args . cut-args) in the
reference implementation causes some uses of cut to fail even
though the spec for cut indicates that they should succeed, because
"loop" is a valid expression. You could fix this by changing the
marker to some non-expression datum like (), #(), or #(loop).
Alternatively, bind a top-level identifier like srfi26-internal-cut
to the internal version. Then the cut macro would no longer suffer
the misfeature of allowing ill-formed uses just because they happen
to match its internals.
P.S. The real solution here is that the syntax for transformers
should be extended to allow (let-syntax <bindings> <transformer>) as a
valid transformer, with the obvious semantics, and then you could
(syntax-rules (<> <...>)
((cut . args) (internal-cut () () . args)))))
but that's the subject of a different SRFI.