[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ellipses
- To: srfi-93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Ellipses
- From: "David Feuer" <david.feuer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:56:59 -0400
- Delivered-to: srfi-93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=JQLJlD2syyAzNge/w93lUa6ou7MXJ07dsUn7aHiRPvJiwq4Z8AAquOtPwsOt4vGcqoU5ODz2BYZ+EcNWNqUoNyiU0M/CDTejvhGH321gDzxjLw5DlTuenrxF7MLcGg6+Th/XIm5MnBW28WIC3nXJutXKcsuGmuhS1jYF2MdoWrk=
I think Petrofsky's suggestion for handling ellipses (SRFI-46) is far
cleaner that the one in the SRFI-93 draft. For syntax-rules macros, I
would recommend adopting the SRFI-46 method, or something very similar
to it. As well as being easier to understand, I believe that the
current proposal would be expressible in Petrofsky's syntax, but that
the converse does not hold. For syntax-case macros, I think we should
take the opportunity to go all the way with Petrofsky's idea, and make
the ellipsis identifier a required argument to SYNTAX-CASE.
David Feuer