This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 87 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 87 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
This seems like a useful feature, and I recall wondering myself why RnRS "cond" had "=>" yet "case" did not. I suspect the distinction involved reduced-sugar diet: getting the value of a clause test within "cond" is very hard without "=>", but getting the key of a "case" form without "=>" is easy. Also, "cond"'s "=>" is a somewhat unfortunate kind of sugar, as some syntax transformers that can produce "cond" forms have to specially handle "=>" identifiers in their input syntax. Adding "=>" sugar to "case" would similarly burden some syntax extensions that produce "case" forms. I'd like to be informed by the original wisdom for why "case" didn't have a "=>" in the first place. Does anyone know the RnRS rationale? -- http://www.neilvandyke.org/