On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
> David Van Horn <dvanhorn_at_cs.brandeis.edu> writes:
>
> > A few notes and questions on syntax-rules:
>
> I can only answer one of your bullets:
>
> > 3) Why not cut the specification of syntax-rules, which is later
> > subsumed and partly duplicated by the specification of syntax-case,
> > and simply replace the current specification with its definition in
> > terms of syntax-case?
>
> This is to avoid creating a forward dependency between the two. Also,
> many people (like myself) regard `syntax-rules' as simpler to use, and
> have trouble dealing with `syntax-case'. We don't want to require
> them to understand the much more complicated specification of
> `syntax-case' just to be able to use `syntax-rules'.
I agree that users shouldn't have to learn syntax-case to use
syntax-rules, but I don't see how defining syntax-rules in terms of
syntax-case in the report would create such a situation.
I've used syntax-rules for months and I still haven't looked at the
R5RS definition of it -- I read JRM's tutorial instead.
--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Received on Sun Nov 19 2006 - 14:10:31 UTC