This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 93 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 93 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
I assume the standard boiler plate you are thinking of is (define-syntax foo (lambda (stx) (syntax-case stx () <clauses>))) ?
a common extension to define-syntax is (define-syntax (foo stx) == (define-syntax foo (lambda (stx) ...)) The "standard boiler plate" then becomes (define-syntax (foo stx) (syntax-case stx () <clauses>)) This is almost as short as your convenience macro
This has one extra longish keyword, an extra parameter name mentioned twice, and an extra level of nesting/indentation.
and at the same time still makes it possible to refer to the original input syntax-object of the transformer.
This seems to work: (define-syntax-case name literals (form expression)) For example: (define-syntax-case foo () (form #`(quote form))) Of course this isn't any better than your "common extension", but it's not noticeably worse. And it does allow convenient pattern-matching, about as convenient and compact as Common Lisp's defmacro, but allowing multiple "cases".
I agree with you that the common case should be convenient to write, in this case I'm not sure I think it is worth introducing an extra binding form in order to save relatively few key strokes.
It's not the number of keystrokes that matter, it's the number of tokens. Each token adds to the cognitive load required to read a definition. A programmer familiar with the idiom can abstract way the boiler-plate fairly easily, but it is still an extra required but useless mental step. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/