[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Variable transformers and transformer forms

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 93 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 93 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On 6/24/06, Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David Feuer wrote:
> As a convenience form I would suggest

This is still needlessly verbose.   A problem is the desire for
orthogonality, separating the binding (define/let/letrec-syntax)
from the transformer specification.  That is all very well for
"core" macro syntax, but it is overkill for what people need
99% of the time.

I want to clarify that my primary purpose in that message was to
suggest a core form styled after those in R5RS and MIT Scheme, and
compatible with pre-existing implementations, and show how it could
easily support convenience forms.  I don't really care /which/
convenience forms are provided.

David Feuer