This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 53 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 53 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
I have the same pet-peeve with {define,let,letrec}-syntax and syntax-rules, but in (define-syntax-computation foo (computation-rules () ...)) computation-rules is a noiseword. You could just as easily write (define-syntax-computation foo () ...) which is shorter and more to the point. Likewise for the let- and letrec- versions. Of course, you do still want computation-rules by itself for anonymous computations, much as people have made the argument for syntax-rules by itself. A possible reason for requiring the explicit computation-rules in the define- and let- forms is if you want to allow people to use alternate forms for computation-rules. For instance, you could "alias" syntax with: (define-syntax-computation foo bar) or possibly generate something dynamically with (define-syntax-computation foo implicit-syntax-inspect-form) but currently the reference implementation doesn't allow this and these extensions could be added by pattern matching regardless of whether or not you require the computation-rules. Am I missing something? -- Alex