Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum at cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> On Sep 20, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
>> Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum at cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>
>>> Since the R6RS draft changed the way cond, case, let-syntax,
>>> letrec-syntax, and syntax-rules are parsed/expanded from how
>>> it was in R6RS, which version of these bindings should be in
>>> the R5RS environments? If it is the R6RS version of these
>>> bindings, then the four identifiers =>, ..., else, and _
>>> should be added to the null-environment.
>>
>> Except for _, I believe you're right and fix appropriately.
>
> Bizarre. So, in the null-environment, everything behaves like
> R6RS except for syntax-rules, which behaves like R5RS? And
> the reason the null-environment's syntax-rules behaves differently
> is not because it's a different macro, but because it doesn't
> see "the-underscore". But then again, it won't be exactly like
> R5RS's anyways because the patters language is different.
>
> Forget about my ramblings. Who cares about the null-environment
> anyways.
Right. But I've added _ nevertheless.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Sat Sep 22 2007 - 11:01:55 UTC