[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: isn't computation-rules redundant?

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.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Alex Shinn wrote:

> 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 ()
>     ...)

I agree.  This is in fact exactly how I had it in the first version.
Later I thought it would be more consistent to write instead, as Taylor
Campbell also noted,

  (define-syntax foo
    (computation-rules () ...)

However, this seems impossible to do using the syntax-rules
implementations I have at hand.  However, I
still think this would be the most satisfying way, and I wanted to leave
the current syntax somewhat compatible with maybe having this in future.