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