This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 71 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 71 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Neil W. Van Dyke wrote:
Although, as devil's advocate, I'd point out that the "lambda" syntax has N-terms-plus-rest as one pattern language. So, if "let" uses N-terms-plus-rest and nothing else, there is at least precedent.
But there's no precedent for the `rest' syntax in lambda. And Al Petrofsky pointed out an issue with using the lambda semi-variable-arity feature.
My concerns with that would be: ...
I agree with your concerns about making this a general pattern matching SRFI; such a SRFI would be quite an undertaking, and it doesn't help matters that there is no way to define a datatype in R5RS. (Luckily there is SRFI 57).
André van Tonder has been working on a pattern matching proposal for some time, and I've tried to contribute to it. In that proposal the language of patterns is extensible. The way `match' works is it examines the head of the pattern. If it is a keyword associated with a pattern rewrite rule (match implicitly carries around an environment binding keywords to syntax transformations), then the match expression is transformed accordingly, otherwise it's interpreted as a regular variable. Using the `values' keyword in `let' would work seamlessly with this approach to pattern matching.
Or, on the other hand, perhaps this SRFI should remain within it's current scope, but in that case I would suggest leaving the extension of `let' in such a way that it is still possible to extend `let' to use patterns in the future. For this reason, I suggest keeping the `values' keyword that Neil W. Van Dyke recently argued against.I don't immediately see how this "values" syntax would be a natural part of the future TBD pattern language, nor how the "(rest VAR)" syntax precludes a future TBD pattern language. If you are asserting one of those, could you say a bit more about that?
I think my point was having a keyword at the head of the form is helpful, but in particular whenever there are keywords within the form whose meaning depends on the context. Adding a `rest' keyword to `let' seems like a hack, but adding a `rest' keyword to a `values' pattern seems appropriate.
But really all I wanted to do was point out that we're now talking about pattern matching, even if only for multiple values.