[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Variable transformers and transformer forms
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.