From: Alvationsay Petrofsky <alvationsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:18:20 US/Eastern
Subject: Re: reference implementation; multiple patterns after ellipsis
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:36:53 -0400
From: Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Did you mean to respond only to me and not the list?
Eek. That would require that I somehow comprehend psyntax. If
Scott and Felix can only _barely_ comprehend it, I have grave doubts
about _me_ comprehending it...(but I suppose I can try to, and maybe
try to comprehend yours as well, although the more I think about it
the more I dislike the idea of writing a macro transformer purely for
SYNTAX-RULES and _directly_ for SYNTAX-RULES; Scheme48's macro
expander, for instance, totals fewer than one thousand lines of code,
_including_ comments, and it's a SYNTAX-RULES->explicit renaming
transformer _as_well_as_ a macro expander for explicit renaming;
unfortunately, the explicit renaming bit uses Scheme48's internal AST
stuff, so it's not portable at all)
If you like scheme48's implementation, then you should extend it to
support SRFI-46. Then we'll have two independent implementations,
which is much better than one, even if neither is of practical use
with most scheme systems.
I guess I could put a link to your expander in the implementation
section. Would that be OK?
No, a copy of the reference implementation (whatever it is) should be
stored with the SRFI.