[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.

David Feuer