From: John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] plain lambdas as syntax transformers Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 05:47:24 -0400
> Felix scripsit: > >> I know this is going to be controversial, but I'd like to un-deprecate >> the use of plain procedures as syntax-transformers. The way it is >> currently implemented, using a procedure can be seen as a simple >> default (er-transformer). I find the use of transformer-constructors >> clutters up the code, adds unnecessary typing and indentation, and is >> more or less meaningless for newbies. > > I too tend to use syntax-rules almost all the time, ir-transformer rarely, > and er-transformer never. I like always specifying a transformer, as > I believe it clarifies rather than cluttering the code. In addition, > who knows: perhaps some day sc-transformer and rsc-transformer will > be added to Chicken (over your dead body, I know!). Omitting the > transformer exposes something that I consider an internal detail of > Chicken that 99.99% of the time I don't care about. As a default, > it is the wrong default. So wwhat would be the right default, if I may ask? cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers