[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: isn't computation-rules redundant?
At Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:44:26 -0800 (PST), campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > Am I missing something?
> Yes. DEFINE-SYNTAX is supposed to be the _universal_ derived syntax
> definition form. DEFINE-SYNTAX-COMPUTATION should be the noise word;
> you should be able to do things like:
> (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ...))
> (define-syntax bar
> (explicit-renaming (lambda (form rename compare) ...)))
> (define-syntax baz
> (syntax-computations () ;or computation-rules, or whatever
> (define-syntax quux
> (syntactic-closures (lambda (form creation-env usage-env) ...)))
> The fact that you currently cannot extend the set of transformer forms
> for the right-hand-sides of syntax definitions is due to entirely
> separate issues regarding module systems, environment towers, and other
> matters. If R6RS defines a Scheme48-style module system, as has been
> suggested at the 2003 Scheme Workshop, you'll certainly be able to
> easily extend that set without saying 'this set is extended by this
> SRFI but I sha'n't tell you how,' as is necessary currently.
But in this case DEFINE-SYNTAX-COMPUTATION is not a noise word but
itself syntactic sugar:
((define-syntax-computation name vars rules)
(syntax-computations vars rules)))))
Since we need to define define-syntax-computation separately in this
SRFI for portability, why not make it the more readable version?