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 Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Andre van Tonder wrote: > I think these are all expressible more simply with bind only (assuming we > call it syntax-bind). E.g., > > (syntax-bind ((x (syntax-reverse (x y z)) > (y (syntax-return (u v w)) > (void (syntax-message "Debug message")) > (syntax-append x y)) > > Here the first line does what COMPUTE does, the second line does what > LET does, and the third line is a syntactic computation with a throwaway > result. Oh. Duh. I didn't think of such blinding obviousness. > > I also have a suggestion to rename SYNTAX-BIND to SYNTAX-EXTEND, as the > > monadic >>= operator is often differently named. > > Good idea. OK, so are we going with SYNTAX-EXTEND being the internal >>= form and SYNTAX-BIND being the user-exposed convenient syntax? Also, will SYNTAX-BIND still be without built-in pattern matching as SYNTAX-DO was?